Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is increasingly recognized as a heterogeneous disease with distinct inflammatory endotypes, among which eosinophilic CRS (ECRS)—a category that substantially overlaps with, but is not equivalent to, Type 2 CRS—is associated with severe symptoms, frequent recurrence, and comorbid asthma. Accurate identification of Type 2 CRS has become clinically essential with the emergence of biologic therapies that target Type 2 inflammatory pathways. However, most diagnostic criteria, including those proposed by European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 (EPOS 2020), were developed from Western populations, in which ECRS with nasal polyps predominates. This review critically examines the applicability of these criteria in Asian populations, in which non-eosinophilic and mixed inflammatory endotypes remain prevalent. Evidence from Korean and Japanese cohorts indicates that the EPOS 2020 Type 2 criteria have poor specificity in Asian patients with CRS with nasal polyps, classifying nearly all such patients as Type 2 because of differences in baseline biomarker distributions. We discuss histological thresholds for defining ECRS and highlight that Asian studies support higher tissue eosinophil cut-offs, approximately 70 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF) or around 10% of total inflammatory cells, compared with the 10 eosinophils per HPF recommended by Western guidelines. This review also evaluates outpatient- friendly scoring systems, such as Japanese Epidemiological Survey of Refractory Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis (JESREC) and newly proposed Korean diagnostic criteria, as well as emerging machine-learning approaches for noninvasive prediction of ECRS. We conclude that clinicians in Asia should adopt regionally validated criteria that integrate histological, serological, and clinical parameters to accurately identify Type 2 CRS, optimize selection of biologic candidates, and improve prognostic counseling in this population.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Purpose: Cystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs. Materials and Methods: T category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata’s classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct [CD]; combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them. Results: No significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types. Conclusion Unlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.

Purpose: Cystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs. Materials and Methods: T category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata’s classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct [CD]; combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them. Results: No significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types. Conclusion Unlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Purpose: Cystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs. Materials and Methods: T category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata’s classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct [CD]; combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them. Results: No significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types. Conclusion Unlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.