Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming essential in the fields of precision oncology. With implementation of NGS in daily clinic, the needs for continued education, facilitated interpretation of NGS results and optimal treatment delivery based on NGS results have been addressed. Molecular tumor board (MTB) is multidisciplinary approach to keep pace with the growing knowledge of complex molecular alterations in patients with advanced solid cancer. Although guidelines for NGS use and MTB have been developed in western countries, there is limitation for reflection of Korea’s public health environment and daily clinical practice. These recommendations provide a critical guidance from NGS panel testing to final treatment decision based on MTB discussion.

Background/Aims: The clinical benefit of strict blood glucose-lowering therapy for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is still debated. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with diabetes who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), according to the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level after PCI. Methods: We evaluated 675 diabetes patients with CAD treated with PCI. We categorized the study population into three groups based on the mean observed HbA1c levels during the follow-up duration, as follows: aggressive control (AC) group (HbA1c level < 6.5%, n = 148), moderate control (MC) group (HbA1c level ≥ 6.5% and < 7.0%, n = 138), and uncontrolled (UC) group (HbA1c level ≥ 7.0%, n = 389). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat target vessel revascularization, and stroke. Results: The mean HbA1c level of the AC group was significantly lower than that of the MC and UC groups (6.04% ± 0.36% vs. 6.74% ± 0.14% vs. 8.39% ± 1.20%, p < 0.001). The incidence of MACCEs was significantly lower in the AC group than in the MC and UC groups (16.0% vs. 24.3% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.010), mostly driven by the incidence of stroke (4.4% vs. 14.0% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.013). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that only the AC group was associated with a reduced rate of MACCEs (hazard ratio, 0.499; 95% confidence interval, 0.316 to 0.786; p = 0.004) compared with the UC group. Conclusions Our study showed that intensive glycemic control (HbA1c level < 6.5%) is associated with improved clinical outcomes after PCI in patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Public hospitals were established to provide high quality medical services to low socioeconomic status patients. This study examined the effects of public hospitals on the treatment and prognosis of patients with five-major gastrointestinal (GI) cancers (stomach cancer, colon cancer, liver cancer, bile duct cancer, and pancreatic cancer).METHODS: Among the 1,268 patients treated at Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center from January 2010 to December 2017, 164 (13%) were in the medicare group. The data were analyzed to identify and compare the clinical manifestations, treatment modality, and clinical outcomes between the groups.RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the clinical data (age, sex), treatment method, and five-year survival rate were observed between the health insurance group and medicare group in the five major GI cancer patients. On the other hand, some medicare group patients tended more comorbidities and fewer treatment options than health insurance patients.CONCLUSIONS: Public hospitals have a positive effect on the treatment and prognosis in medicare group patients with the five-major GI cancers.
Bile Duct Neoplasms ; Colonic Neoplasms ; Comorbidity ; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms ; Hand ; Hospitals, Public ; Humans ; Insurance Coverage ; Insurance, Health ; Liver Neoplasms ; Medicare ; Methods ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Seoul ; Social Class ; Survival Rate

The molecular mechanism underlying the initiation of somatic cell reprogramming into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has not been well described. Thus, we generated single-cell-derived clones by using a combination of drug-inducible vectors encoding transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and Myc) and a single-cell expansion strategy. This system achieved a high reprogramming efficiency after metabolic and epigenetic remodeling. Functional analyses of the cloned cells revealed that extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) signaling was downregulated at an early stage of reprogramming and that its inhibition was a driving force for iPSC formation. Among the reprogramming factors, Myc predominantly induced ERK suppression. ERK inhibition upregulated the conversion of somatic cells into iPSCs through concomitant suppression of serum response factor (SRF). Conversely, SRF activation suppressed the reprogramming induced by ERK inhibition and negatively regulated embryonic pluripotency by inducing differentiation via upregulation of immediate early genes, such as c-Jun, c-Fos and EGR1. These data reveal that suppression of the ERK-SRF axis is an initial molecular event that facilitates iPSC formation and may be a useful surrogate marker for cellular reprogramming.