Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate and optimize microbial DNA extraction methods from urine, a non-invasive sample source, to enhance DNA quality, purity, and reliability for urinary microbiome research and biomarker discovery in bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: A total of 302 individuals (258 with genitourinary cancers and 44 with benign urologic diseases) participated in this study. Urine samples were collected via sterile catheterization, resulting in 445 vials for microbial analysis. DNA extraction was performed using three protocols: the standard protocol (SP), water dilution protocol (WDP), and chelation-assisted protocol (CAP). DNA quality (concentration, purity, and contamination levels) was assessed using NanoDrop spectrophotometry.Microbial analysis was conducted on 138 samples (108 cancerous and 30 benign) using 16S rRNA sequencing. Prior to sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform, Victor 3 fluorometry was used for validation. Results: WDP outperformed other methods, achieving significantly higher 260/280 and 260/230 ratios, indicating superior DNA purity and reduced contamination, while maintaining reliable DNA yields. CAP was excluded due to poor performance across all metrics. Microbial abundance was significantly higher in WDP-extracted samples (p<0.0001), whereas SP demonstrated higher alpha diversity indices (p<0.01), likely due to improved detection of low-abundance taxa. Beta diversity analysis showed no significant compositional differences between SP and WDP (p=1.0), supporting the reliability of WDP for microbiome research. Conclusions WDP is a highly effective and reliable method for microbial DNA extraction from urine, ensuring high-quality and reproducible results. Future research should address sample variability and crystal precipitation to further refine microbiome-based diagnostics and therapeutics.

Mangiferin is a kind of natural xanthone glycosides and is known to have various pharmacological activities. However, since the beneficial efficacy of this compound has not been reported in retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells, this study aimed to evaluate whether mangiferin could protect human RPE ARPE-19 cells from oxidative injury mimicked by hydrogen peroxide (H 2O 2). The results showed that mangiferin attenuated H 2O 2-induced cell viability reduction and DNA damage, while inhibiting reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and preserving diminished glutathione (GSH). Mangiferin also antagonized H 2O 2-induced inhibition of the expression and activity of antioxidant enzymes such as manganese superoxide dismutase and GSH peroxidase, which was associated with inhibition of mitochondrial ROS production. In addition, mangiferin protected ARPE-19 cells from H 2O 2-induced apoptosis by increasing the Bcl-2/Bax ratio, decreasing caspase-3 activation, and blocking poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage. Moreover, mangiferin suppressed the release of cytochrome c into the cytosol, which was achieved by interfering with mitochondrial membrane disruption. Furthermore, mangiferin increased the expression and activity of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) and nuclear factor-erythroid-2 related factor 2 (Nrf2). However, the inhibition of ROS production, cytoprotective and anti-apoptotic effects of mangiferin were significantly attenuated by the HO-1 inhibitor, indicating that mangiferin promoted Nrf2-mediated HO-1 activity to prevent ARPE-19 cells from oxidative injury. The results of this study suggest that mangiferin, as an Nrf2 activator, has potent ROS scavenging activity and may have the potential to protect oxidative stress-mediated ocular diseases.