The transglutaminase family is roughly 250 million years old. Horseshoe crabs have been described as a ‘living fossil’ and have remained virtually unchanged since first appearing around the Triassic period. The horseshoe crab, a living fossil, carries a primitive form of TG that helps it defend against infection and survive. Transglutaminase 2 (TG2, EC 2.3.2.13, gene name TGM2) is mainly known as a cross-linking enzyme in vertebrates. Although TG2 is not an oncogene, its high levels are linked to worse outcomes in many cancers. However, how TG2 cross-linking activity relates to its role in promoting cancer growth remains unclear. A recent discovery sheds light on this. In ovarian cancer cells, TG2 binds directly to GSK3β, leading to its removal by autophagosomes, which activates β-catenin. Stopping this interaction allows GSK3β levels to recover, thereby decreasing β-catenin activity. Even in the absence of cross-linking, cancer cells use TG2 as a chaperone to promote growth and support metastasis. This suggests intracellular calcium levels are too low for TG2 to perform cross-linking. It also indicates that anticancer treatments may increase TG2 levels in cancer cells, helping them recover by removing tumor suppressors. As a result, TG2 plays a role in developing drug resistance, acting as a primitive systemic defense mechanism linked with survival signals. I suggest that blocking TG2 binding, combined with inhibiting autophagy or alternative signaling pathways, is essential for effectively overcoming drug resistance, since it is rooted in TG2’s primordial role.

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: 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.

Background: and Purpose This study evaluated the diagnostic utility of an anti-signal-recognition particle 54 (anti-SRP54) antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as well as the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of patients with SRP immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM). Methods: We evaluated 87 patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy and 107 healthy participants between January 2002 and December 2023. The sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies were assessed, and the clinical profiles of patients with antiSRP54 antibodies were determined. Results: The ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 99%, respectively, along with a test–retest reliability of 0.92 (p<0.001). The 32 patients diagnosed with anti-SRP IMNM using a line-blot immunoassay included 28 (88%) who tested positive for anti-SRP54 antibodies using the ELISA, comprising 12 (43%) males and 16 (57%) females whose median ages at symptom onset and diagnosis were 43.0 years and 43.5 years, respectively. Symptoms included proximal muscle weakness in all 28 (100%) patients, neck weakness in 9 (32%), myalgia in 15 (54%), dysphagia in 5 (18%), dyspnea in 4 (14%), dysarthria in 2 (7%), interstitial lung disease in 2 (7%), and myocarditis in 2 (7%). The median serum creatine kinase (CK) level was 7,261 U/L (interquartile range: 5,086–10,007 U/L), and the median anti-SRP54 antibody level was 2.0 U/mL (interquartile range: 1.0–5.6 U/mL). The serum CK level was significantly higher in patients with coexisting anti-Ro-52 antibodies. Conclusions This study has confirmed the reliability of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies and provided insights into the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of South Korean patients with anti-SRP IMNM.

Background: and Purpose This study evaluated the diagnostic utility of an anti-signal-recognition particle 54 (anti-SRP54) antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as well as the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of patients with SRP immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM). Methods: We evaluated 87 patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy and 107 healthy participants between January 2002 and December 2023. The sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies were assessed, and the clinical profiles of patients with antiSRP54 antibodies were determined. Results: The ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 99%, respectively, along with a test–retest reliability of 0.92 (p<0.001). The 32 patients diagnosed with anti-SRP IMNM using a line-blot immunoassay included 28 (88%) who tested positive for anti-SRP54 antibodies using the ELISA, comprising 12 (43%) males and 16 (57%) females whose median ages at symptom onset and diagnosis were 43.0 years and 43.5 years, respectively. Symptoms included proximal muscle weakness in all 28 (100%) patients, neck weakness in 9 (32%), myalgia in 15 (54%), dysphagia in 5 (18%), dyspnea in 4 (14%), dysarthria in 2 (7%), interstitial lung disease in 2 (7%), and myocarditis in 2 (7%). The median serum creatine kinase (CK) level was 7,261 U/L (interquartile range: 5,086–10,007 U/L), and the median anti-SRP54 antibody level was 2.0 U/mL (interquartile range: 1.0–5.6 U/mL). The serum CK level was significantly higher in patients with coexisting anti-Ro-52 antibodies. Conclusions This study has confirmed the reliability of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies and provided insights into the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of South Korean patients with anti-SRP IMNM.

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.