Although the clinical importance of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer is being increasingly recognized, its definition and treatment strategies vary considerably across regions. Recently, new concepts such as the gastroesophageal junction zone have been proposed for classification of EGJ cancer. Moreover, EGJ adenocarcinoma has been shown to possess a heterogeneous molecular profile consisting of both esophageal- and gastric-like phenotypes, indicating the need for EGJ-specific therapeutic strategies.Although international clinical practice guidelines for EGJ cancer have been published, substantial regional differences remain. This review aimed to summarize recent updates on the biological characteristics and management of EGJ cancers. Trials such as TIME and MIRO have demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) reduces postoperative complications and improves the early postoperative quality of life. More recently, the MONET trial showed that MIS is not inferior to open esophagectomy in terms of long-term oncological outcomes, and the REVATE trial demonstrated the advantages of robot-assisted surgery over thoracoscopic approaches. Perioperative treatment strategies also differ across regions. Western guidelines recommend 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT)-based perioperative chemotherapy, as supported by the FLOT4 and ESOPEC trials, whereas Asian studies, such as RESOLVE and PRODIGY, have demonstrated the efficacy of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 or S-1 plus oxaliplatin regimens. The application of immune checkpoint inhibitors is also evolving; although KEYNOTE-585 did not show a survival advantage, the MATTERHORN trial demonstrated that durvalumab plus FLOT significantly improved event-free survival, establishing a new emerging global standard. Future directions include redefining EGJ classification, implementing molecular-guided treatment selection, advancing organ-preserving strategies, and optimizing perioperative immunochemotherapy.

The patient, a female in her 60s, was under anticoagulant therapy with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for persistent atrial fibrillation. She suddenly presented with chest pain, prompting her emergency admission to our medical facility. Subsequently, she received a diagnosis of acute aortic dissection (Stanford A) and was referred to our department for urgent surgical intervention. The administration of Andexanet Alfa was initiated in the emergency department due to the markedly elevated risk of life-threatening hemorrhage associated with DOAC medications. Surgery was approached through a median sternotomy, and 20,000 units of unfractionated heparin were administered intravenously during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) preparation. However, the activated clotting time (ACT) exhibited suboptimal extension at 181 s (pre-heparin ACT: 124 s), necessitating supplementary heparin infusion. This resulted in the cumulative administration of 80,000 U of heparin before achieving an ACT exceeding 400 s. Suspecting heparin resistance, we maintained an ACT greater than 400 s during CPB through the continuous administration of nafamostat within the CPB circuit. Subsequently, we performed graft replacement of the ascending aorta, weaning from the CPB was smooth, hemostasis was good, and the operation was completed. The patient's postoperative recovery remained uneventful, leading to her discharge on the 11th day following the surgery. Notably, there were no instances of major bleeding or thromboembolic events during her hospitalization. Preoperative oral DOAC therapy presents a critical and potentially life-threatening concern due to its association with heightened intraoperative and postoperative bleeding risks. Currently, a Factor Xa inhibitor reversal agent, Andexanet Alfa (Ondexa®)，is available and expected to contribute to the treatment of critical bleeding in patients taking DOAC. However, further research is warranted to accumulate knowledge regarding its efficacy and optimal utilization. In this case, we present an instance of acute aortic dissection with heparin resistance following the preoperative administration of a DOAC antagonist, contributing to the existing literature on this matter.

Background/Aims: Bilateral endoscopic drainage with self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) can be used to effectively manage hilar malignant biliary obstruction. However, the benefits of using a trisegment drainage method remain unknown. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed the data of 125 patients with Bismuth type IIIa or IV unresectable malignant strictures who underwent bilateral endoscopic drainage using SEMSs at four tertiary centers. The patients were divided into the bilateral and trisegment drainage groups for comparison. The primary endpoint was stent patency and the secondary endpoints were technical success, technical and clinical success of reintervention, and overall survival. Results: The technical success rates of the bilateral and trisegment drainage groups were 95% (34/36) and 90% (80/89) (p=0.41), respectively, with median stent patency durations of 226 and 170 days (p=0.26), respectively. Although the technical success of reintervention was not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.51), the clinical success rate of reintrvention was significantly higher in the trisegment drainage group (73% [11/15] vs 96% [47/49], p=0.009). The median survival times were 324 and 323 days in the bilateral and trisegment drainage groups, respectively (p=0.72). Multivariate Cox hazards model revealed no stent patency-associated factor; however, chemotherapy was associated with longer survival. Conclusions Although no significant difference was noted with respect to stent patency, significantly higher clinical success rates were achieved with reintervention using the trisegment drainage method than using the bilateral drainage method alone.