6-gingerol, a bioactive compound from ginger, has demonstrated promising anticancer properties across various cancer models by inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation and invasion. In this study, we explore its mechanisms against glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a notably aggressive and treatment-resistant brain tumor. We found that 6-gingerol crosses the blood-brain barrier more effectively than curcumin, enhancing its potential as a therapeutic agent for brain tumors. Our experiments show that 6-gingerol reduces cell proliferation and triggers apoptosis in GBM cell lines by disrupting cellular energy homeostasis. This process involves an increase in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS) and a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, primarily due to the downregulation of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD). Additionally, 6-gingerol reduces ERK phosphorylation by inhibiting EGFR and RAF, leading to G1 phase cell cycle arrest. These findings indicate that 6-gingerol promotes cell death in GBM cells by modulating MnSOD and ROS levels and arresting the cell cycle through the ERFR-RAF-1/MEK/ ERK signaling pathway, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic agent for GBM and setting the stage for future clinical research.

6-gingerol, a bioactive compound from ginger, has demonstrated promising anticancer properties across various cancer models by inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation and invasion. In this study, we explore its mechanisms against glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a notably aggressive and treatment-resistant brain tumor. We found that 6-gingerol crosses the blood-brain barrier more effectively than curcumin, enhancing its potential as a therapeutic agent for brain tumors. Our experiments show that 6-gingerol reduces cell proliferation and triggers apoptosis in GBM cell lines by disrupting cellular energy homeostasis. This process involves an increase in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS) and a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, primarily due to the downregulation of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD). Additionally, 6-gingerol reduces ERK phosphorylation by inhibiting EGFR and RAF, leading to G1 phase cell cycle arrest. These findings indicate that 6-gingerol promotes cell death in GBM cells by modulating MnSOD and ROS levels and arresting the cell cycle through the ERFR-RAF-1/MEK/ ERK signaling pathway, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic agent for GBM and setting the stage for future clinical research.

6-gingerol, a bioactive compound from ginger, has demonstrated promising anticancer properties across various cancer models by inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation and invasion. In this study, we explore its mechanisms against glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a notably aggressive and treatment-resistant brain tumor. We found that 6-gingerol crosses the blood-brain barrier more effectively than curcumin, enhancing its potential as a therapeutic agent for brain tumors. Our experiments show that 6-gingerol reduces cell proliferation and triggers apoptosis in GBM cell lines by disrupting cellular energy homeostasis. This process involves an increase in mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS) and a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, primarily due to the downregulation of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD). Additionally, 6-gingerol reduces ERK phosphorylation by inhibiting EGFR and RAF, leading to G1 phase cell cycle arrest. These findings indicate that 6-gingerol promotes cell death in GBM cells by modulating MnSOD and ROS levels and arresting the cell cycle through the ERFR-RAF-1/MEK/ ERK signaling pathway, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic agent for GBM and setting the stage for future clinical research.

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.

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: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients who failed antiviral therapy are at increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the potential role of metformin and statins, medications for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperlipidemia (HLP), in reducing HCC risk among these patients. Methods: We included CHC patients from the T-COACH study who failed antiviral therapy. We tracked the onset of HCC 1.5 years post-therapy by linking to Taiwan’s cancer registry data from 2003 to 2019. We accounted for death and liver transplantation as competing risks and employed Gray’s cumulative incidence and Cox subdistribution hazards models to analyze HCC development. Results: Out of 2,779 patients, 480 (17.3%) developed HCC post-therapy. DM patients not using metformin had a 51% increased risk of HCC compared to non-DM patients, while HLP patients on statins had a 50% reduced risk compared to those without HLP. The 5-year HCC incidence was significantly higher for metformin non-users (16.5%) versus non-DM patients (11.3%; adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.51; P=0.007) and metformin users (3.1%; aSHR=1.59; P=0.022). Statin use in HLP patients correlated with a lower HCC risk (3.8%) compared to non-HLP patients (12.5%; aSHR=0.50; P<0.001). Notably, the increased HCC risk associated with non-use of metformin was primarily seen in non-cirrhotic patients, whereas statins decreased HCC risk in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. Conclusions Metformin and statins may have a chemopreventive effect against HCC in CHC patients who failed antiviral therapy. These results support the need for personalized preventive strategies in managing HCC risk.

Purpose: Active surveillance (AS) is one of the management options for patients with low-risk and select intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC). However, factors predicting disease reclassification and conversion to active treatment from a large population of pure Asian cohorts regarding AS are less evaluated. This study investigated the intermediate-term outcomes of patients with localized PC undergoing AS. Materials and Methods: This cohort study enrolled consecutive men with localized non-high-risk PC diagnosed in Taiwan between June 2012 and Jan 2023. The study endpoints were disease reclassification (either pathological or radiographic progression) and conversion to active treatment. The factors predicting endpoints were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 405 patients (median age: 67.2 years) were consecutively enrolled and followed up with a median of 64.6 months. Based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk grouping, 70 (17.3%), 164 (40.5%), 140 (34.6%), and 31 (7.7%) patients were classified as very low-risk, low-risk, favorable-intermediate risk, and unfavorable intermediate-risk PC, respectively. The 5-year reclassification rates were 24.8%, 27.0%, 18.6%, and 25.3%, respectively. The 5-year conversion rates were 20.4%, 28.8%, 43.6%, and 37.8%, respectively. A prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) of ≥0.15 ng/mL2 predicted reclassification (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–2.88) and conversion (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05–2.31). A maximal percentage of cancer in positive cores (MPCPC) of ≥15% predicted conversion (15% to <50%: HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.91–2.18; ≥50%: HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.1453–3.40) compared with that of <15%. A Gleason grade group (GGG) of 3 tumor also predicted conversion (HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.06–6.79; GGG 3 vs 1). One patient developed metastasis, but none died of PC during the study period (2,141 person-years). Conclusions AS is a viable option for Taiwanese men with non-high-risk PC, in terms of reclassification and conversion. High PSAD predicted reclassification, whereas high PSAD, MPCPC, and GGG predicted conversion.