Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: This study elucidates the mechanism of the physiological effect of cannabidiol (CBD) by assessing its impact on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation in RWPE-1 cells and prostatitis-induced by 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone in a rat model, focusing on its therapeutic potential for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Materials and Methods: RWPE-1 cells were stratified in vitro into three groups: (1) controls, (2) cells with LPS-induced inflammation, and (3) cells with LPS-induced inflammation and treated with CBD. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and western blots were performed on cellular components and supernatants after administration of CBD. Five groups of six Sprague–Dawley male rats were assigned: (1) control, (2) CP/CPPS, (3) CP/CPPS and treated with 50 mg/kg CBD, (4) CP/CPPS and treated with 100 mg/kg CBD, and (5) CP/CPPS and treated with 150 mg/kg CBD. Prostatitis was induced through administration of 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone. After four weeks of CBD treatment, a pain index was evaluated, and prostate tissue was collected for subsequent histologic examination and western blot analysis. Results: CBD demonstrated efficacy in vivo for CP/CPPS and in vitro for inflammation. It inhibited the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)uclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, reducing expression of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) (p<0.01). CBD exhibited analgesic effects by activating and desensitizing the TRPV1 receptor. Conclusions CBD inhibits the TLR4/NF-κB pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, desensitizes the TRPV1 receptor, and decreases the release of COX2. This results in relief of inflammation and pain in patients with CP/CPPS, indicating CBD as a potential treatment for CP/CPPS.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: This study elucidates the mechanism of the physiological effect of cannabidiol (CBD) by assessing its impact on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation in RWPE-1 cells and prostatitis-induced by 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone in a rat model, focusing on its therapeutic potential for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Materials and Methods: RWPE-1 cells were stratified in vitro into three groups: (1) controls, (2) cells with LPS-induced inflammation, and (3) cells with LPS-induced inflammation and treated with CBD. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and western blots were performed on cellular components and supernatants after administration of CBD. Five groups of six Sprague–Dawley male rats were assigned: (1) control, (2) CP/CPPS, (3) CP/CPPS and treated with 50 mg/kg CBD, (4) CP/CPPS and treated with 100 mg/kg CBD, and (5) CP/CPPS and treated with 150 mg/kg CBD. Prostatitis was induced through administration of 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone. After four weeks of CBD treatment, a pain index was evaluated, and prostate tissue was collected for subsequent histologic examination and western blot analysis. Results: CBD demonstrated efficacy in vivo for CP/CPPS and in vitro for inflammation. It inhibited the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)uclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, reducing expression of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) (p<0.01). CBD exhibited analgesic effects by activating and desensitizing the TRPV1 receptor. Conclusions CBD inhibits the TLR4/NF-κB pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, desensitizes the TRPV1 receptor, and decreases the release of COX2. This results in relief of inflammation and pain in patients with CP/CPPS, indicating CBD as a potential treatment for CP/CPPS.

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) pediatric patients are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, but the viral kinetics and seroimmunologic response in pediatric IC patients are not fully understood. Methods: From April to June 2022, a prospective cohort study was conducted. IC pediatric patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were enrolled. Serial saliva swab and serum specimens were subjected to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays with mutation sequencing, viral culture, anti-spike-protein, anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays, plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and multiplex cytokine assays. Results: Eleven IC children were evaluated. Their COVID-19 symptoms resolved promptly (median, 2.5 days; interquartile range, 2.0–4.3). Saliva swab specimens contained lower viral loads than nasopharyngeal swabs (P = 0.008). All cases were BA.2 infection, and 45.5% tested negative within 14 days by saliva swab from symptom onset. Eight (72.7%) showed a time-dependent increase in BA.2 PRNT titers, followed by rapid waning. Multiplex cytokine assays revealed that monocyte/macrophage activation and Th 1 responses were comparable to those of non-IC adults. Activation of interleukin (IL)-1Ra and IL-6 was brief, and IL-17A was suppressed. Activated interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-18/IL-1F4 signals were observed. Conclusion IC pediatric patients rapidly recovered from COVID-19 with low viral loads.Antibody response was limited, but cytokine analysis suggested an enhanced IFN-γ- and IL-18-mediated immune response without excessive activation of inflammatory cascades. To validate our observation, immune cell-based functional studies need to be conducted among IC and non-IC children.

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) pediatric patients are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, but the viral kinetics and seroimmunologic response in pediatric IC patients are not fully understood. Methods: From April to June 2022, a prospective cohort study was conducted. IC pediatric patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were enrolled. Serial saliva swab and serum specimens were subjected to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays with mutation sequencing, viral culture, anti-spike-protein, anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays, plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and multiplex cytokine assays. Results: Eleven IC children were evaluated. Their COVID-19 symptoms resolved promptly (median, 2.5 days; interquartile range, 2.0–4.3). Saliva swab specimens contained lower viral loads than nasopharyngeal swabs (P = 0.008). All cases were BA.2 infection, and 45.5% tested negative within 14 days by saliva swab from symptom onset. Eight (72.7%) showed a time-dependent increase in BA.2 PRNT titers, followed by rapid waning. Multiplex cytokine assays revealed that monocyte/macrophage activation and Th 1 responses were comparable to those of non-IC adults. Activation of interleukin (IL)-1Ra and IL-6 was brief, and IL-17A was suppressed. Activated interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-18/IL-1F4 signals were observed. Conclusion IC pediatric patients rapidly recovered from COVID-19 with low viral loads.Antibody response was limited, but cytokine analysis suggested an enhanced IFN-γ- and IL-18-mediated immune response without excessive activation of inflammatory cascades. To validate our observation, immune cell-based functional studies need to be conducted among IC and non-IC children.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.