Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

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.

This study was conducted to investigate potential differences in vaccine efficacy between patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy and receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the study proved the influence of vaccination timing on vaccine efficacy during active chemotherapy. Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG binding antibody assays and surrogate neutralizing antibody assays were performed after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination in 45 solid cancer patients (23 adjuvant and 22 palliative chemotherapy) and in 24 healthy controls before vaccination (baseline), at every two to four weeks after the first (post-dose 1) and the second vaccination (post-dose 2). The levels of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly from baseline through post-dose 1 to post-dose 2 in all three groups. At the post-dose 1, the anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibody levels were significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy controls. However, by post-dose 2, the seropositivity of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies uniformly reached 100% across all groups, with no significant disparity in antibody levels among the three groups. Moreover, the antibody titers were not significantly different between patients with a vaccine and chemotherapy interval of more than 14 days or those with less than 14 days. This study demonstrated that after second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, humoral immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were comparable to those of healthy controls, regardless of whether the purpose of the anti-cancer treatment was palliative or adjuvant. Furthermore, the timing of vaccination did not affect the level of humoral immunity after the second vaccination.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background/Aims: The optimal duration and interval of follow-up for cystic lesions of the pancreas (CLPs) is not well established. This study was performed to investigate the optimal duration and interval of follow-up for CLPs in clinical practice. Methods: Patients with CLPs without worrisome features or high-risk stigmata underwent followup with computed tomography at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and then every 12 months thereafter. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Results: A total of 227 patients with CLPs detected from 2000 to 2008 (mean initial diameter, 1.3±0.6 cm) underwent follow-up for a median of 120 months. Twenty-two patients (9.7%) underwent surgery after a median of 47.5 months. Malignancies developed in four patients (1.8%), one within 5 years and three within 10 years. One hundred and fourteen patients (50.2%) were followed up for more than 10 years. No malignancy developed after 10 years of follow-up. During surveillance, 37 patients (16.3%) experienced progression to surgical indication. In patients with CLPs less than 2 cm in diameter, development of surgical indications did not occur within 24 months of follow-up. Conclusions CLPs should be continuously monitored after 5 years because of the persistent potential for malignant transformation of CLPs. An interval of 24 months for initial follow-up might be enough for CLPs with initial size of less than 2 cm in clinical practice.

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.

BACKGROUND: Current polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DESs) have fundamental issues about inflammation and delayed re-endothelializaton of the vessel wall. Substance-P (SP), which plays an important role in inflammation and endothelial cells, has not yet been applied to coronary stents. Therefore, this study compares poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA)-based everolimus-eluting stents (PLGA-EESs) versus 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC)-based SP-eluting stents (MPC-SPs) in in-vitro and in-vivo models. METHODS: The morphology of the stent surface and peptide/drug release kinetics from stents were evaluated. The invitro proliferative effect of SP released from MPC-SP is evaluated using human umbilical vein endothelial cell. Finally, the safety and efficacy of the stent are evaluated after inserting it into a pig’s coronary artery. RESULTS: Similar to PLGA-EES, MPC-SP had a uniform surface morphology with very thin coating layer thickness (2.074 lm). MPC-SP showed sustained drug release of SP for over 2 weeks. Endothelial cell proliferation was significantly increased in groups treated with SP (n = 3) compared with the control (n = 3) and those with everolimus (n = 3) (SP:118.9 ± 7.61% vs. everolimus: 64.3 ± 12.37% vs. the control: 100 ± 6.64%, p < 0.05). In the animal study, the percent stenosis was higher in MPC-SP group (n = 7) compared to PLGA-EES group (n = 7) (MPC-SP: 28.6 ± 10.7% vs. PLGAEES: 16.7 ± 6.3%, p < 0.05). MPC-SP group showed, however, lower inflammation (MPC-SP: 0.3 ± 0.26 vs. PLGAEES: 1.2 ± 0.48, p < 0.05) and fibrin deposition (MPC-SP: 1.0 ± 0.73 vs. PLGA-EES: 1.5 ± 0.59, p < 0.05) around the stent strut. MPC-SP showed more increased expression of cluster of differentiation 31, suggesting enhanced reendothelialization. CONCLUSION Compared to PLGA-EES, MPC-SP demonstrated more decreased inflammation of the vascular wall and enhanced re-endothelialization and stent coverage. Hence, MPC-SP has the potential therapeutic benefits for the treatment of coronary artery disease by solving limitations of currently available DESs.

BACKGROUND: A drug-eluting stent (DES) is a highly beneficial medical device used to widen or unblock narrowed blood vessels. However, the drugs released by the implantation of DES may hinder the re-endothelialization process, increasing the risk of late thrombosis. We have developed a tacrolimus-eluting stent (TES) that as acts as a potent antiproliferative and immunosuppressive agent, enhancing endothelial regeneration. In addition, we assessed the safety and efficacy of TES through both in vitro and in vivo tests. METHODS: Tacrolimus and Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) were applied to the metal stent using electrospinning equipment. The surface morphology of the stent was examined before and after coating using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive X-rays (EDX). The drug release test was conducted through high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Cell proliferation and migration assays were performed using smooth muscle cells (SMC).The stent was then inserted into the porcine coronary artery and monitored for a duration of 4 weeks. RESULTS: SEM analysis confirmed that the coating surface was uniform. Furthermore, EDX analysis showed that the surface was coated with both polymer and drug components. The HPCL analysis of TCL at a wavelength of 215 nm revealed that the drug was continuously released over a period of 4 weeks. Smooth muscle cell migration was significantly decreased in the tacrolimus group (54.1% ± 11.90%) compared to the non-treated group (90.1% ± 4.86%). In animal experiments, the stenosis rate was significantly reduced in the TES group (29.6% ± 7.93%) compared to the bare metal stent group (41.3% ± 10.18%). Additionally, the fibrin score was found to be lower in the TES group compared to the group treated with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). CONCLUSION Similar to SES, TES reduces neointimal proliferation in a porcine coronary artery model, specifically decreasing the fibrins score. Therefore, tacrolimus could be considered a promising drug for reducing restenosis and thrombosis.