Purpose: Zinc finger protein 639 (ZNF639) is often found within the overlapping amplicon of PIK3CA, and previous studies suggest its involvement in the pathogenesis of esophageal and oral squamous cell carcinomas. However, its expression and significance in breast cancer remain uncharacterized. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis of ZNF639 was performed using tissue microarrays.Functional studies, including colony formation, Transwell cell migration, and in vivo metastasis, were conducted on breast tumor cells with ZNF639 knockdown via small interfering RNA transfection. Results: Reduced ZNF639 immunoreactivity was observed in 82% of the breast cancer samples, independent of hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, ZNF639 expression was associated with favorable survival outcomes, including recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.89) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16– 1.05). ZNF639 knockdown increased clonogenicity, cell motility, and lung metastasis in NOD/ SCID mice. Following the ZNF639 knockdown, the expression of Snail1, vimentin, and C-C chemokine ligand 20 (CCL20) was upregulated, and the changes in cell phenotype mediated by ZNF639 were reversed by the subsequent knockdown of CCL20. Conclusion Low ZNF639 expression is a novel prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in patients with breast cancer.

Purpose: Zinc finger protein 639 (ZNF639) is often found within the overlapping amplicon of PIK3CA, and previous studies suggest its involvement in the pathogenesis of esophageal and oral squamous cell carcinomas. However, its expression and significance in breast cancer remain uncharacterized. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis of ZNF639 was performed using tissue microarrays.Functional studies, including colony formation, Transwell cell migration, and in vivo metastasis, were conducted on breast tumor cells with ZNF639 knockdown via small interfering RNA transfection. Results: Reduced ZNF639 immunoreactivity was observed in 82% of the breast cancer samples, independent of hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, ZNF639 expression was associated with favorable survival outcomes, including recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.89) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16– 1.05). ZNF639 knockdown increased clonogenicity, cell motility, and lung metastasis in NOD/ SCID mice. Following the ZNF639 knockdown, the expression of Snail1, vimentin, and C-C chemokine ligand 20 (CCL20) was upregulated, and the changes in cell phenotype mediated by ZNF639 were reversed by the subsequent knockdown of CCL20. Conclusion Low ZNF639 expression is a novel prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in patients with breast cancer.

Purpose: Zinc finger protein 639 (ZNF639) is often found within the overlapping amplicon of PIK3CA, and previous studies suggest its involvement in the pathogenesis of esophageal and oral squamous cell carcinomas. However, its expression and significance in breast cancer remain uncharacterized. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis of ZNF639 was performed using tissue microarrays.Functional studies, including colony formation, Transwell cell migration, and in vivo metastasis, were conducted on breast tumor cells with ZNF639 knockdown via small interfering RNA transfection. Results: Reduced ZNF639 immunoreactivity was observed in 82% of the breast cancer samples, independent of hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, ZNF639 expression was associated with favorable survival outcomes, including recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.89) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16– 1.05). ZNF639 knockdown increased clonogenicity, cell motility, and lung metastasis in NOD/ SCID mice. Following the ZNF639 knockdown, the expression of Snail1, vimentin, and C-C chemokine ligand 20 (CCL20) was upregulated, and the changes in cell phenotype mediated by ZNF639 were reversed by the subsequent knockdown of CCL20. Conclusion Low ZNF639 expression is a novel prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in patients with breast cancer.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Objective: Emerging evidence suggests that air pollution exposure may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease (PD). We aimed to investigate the association between exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and the risk of incident PD nationwide. Methods: We utilized data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, which is spatiotemporally linked with air quality data from the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration website. The study population consisted of participants who were followed from the index date (January 1, 2005) until the occurrence of PD or the end of the study period (December 31, 2017). Participants who were diagnosed with PD before the index date were excluded. To evaluate the association between exposure to PM2.5 and incident PD risk, we employed Cox regression to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 454,583 participants were included, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 63.1 (9.9) years and a male proportion of 50%. Over a mean follow-up period of 11.1 (3.6) years, 4% of the participants (n = 18,862) developed PD. We observed a significant positive association between PM2.5 exposure and the risk of PD, with a hazard ratio of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.20–1.23) per interquartile range increase in exposure (10.17 μg/m3) when adjusting for both SO2 and NO2. Conclusion We provide further evidence of an association between PM2.5 exposure and the risk of PD. These findings underscore the urgent need for public health policies aimed at reducing ambient air pollution and its potential impact on PD.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Background/Aims: Despite the high efficacy of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), approximately 1–3% of hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients fail to achieve a sustained virological response. We conducted a nationwide study to investigate risk factors associated with DAA treatment failure. Machine-learning algorithms have been applied to discriminate subjects who may fail to respond to DAA therapy. Methods: We analyzed the Taiwan HCV Registry Program database to explore predictors of DAA failure in HCV patients. Fifty-five host and virological features were assessed using multivariate logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and artificial neural network. The primary outcome was undetectable HCV RNA at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Results: The training (n=23,955) and validation (n=10,346) datasets had similar baseline demographics, with an overall DAA failure rate of 1.6% (n=538). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, poor DAA adherence, and higher hemoglobin A1c were significantly associated with virological failure. XGBoost outperformed the other algorithms and logistic regression models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 1.000 in the training dataset and 0.803 in the validation dataset. The top five predictors of treatment failure were HCV RNA, body mass index, α-fetoprotein, platelets, and FIB-4 index. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the XGBoost model (cutoff value=0.5) were 99.5%, 69.7%, 99.9%, 97.4%, and 99.5%, respectively, for the entire dataset. Conclusions Machine learning algorithms effectively provide risk stratification for DAA failure and additional information on the factors associated with DAA failure.