Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

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.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

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.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), dyspnea, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as well as the factorsinfluencing HRQOL. Methods: A total of 129 lung cancer survivors (mean age, 53.4 years; 77 men and 52 women; mean time since diagnosis, 1.6 years; and cancer stage [1/2/3/4/relapse], 43/31/19/34/2, respectively) completed a questionnaire that included demographic and clinical information, as well as questions about the severity of sleep apnea, dyspnea, and HRQOL. The severity of OSA, dyspnea, and HRQOL were assessed using the Berlin questionnaire, the Dyspnea-10 item (FACIT-Dyspnea), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, respectively. Results: The severity of OSA and dyspnea exhibited negative correlations with HRQOL (p < 0.05).Multiple regression analysis revealed that several factors significantly impacted the HRQOLof lung cancer survivors. These included the extent of dyspnea (β = –0.369, p < 0.01), weight loss (β = 0.192, p < 0.01), OSA score (β = −0.215, p < 0.01), stage 2 cancer (β = −0.181, p < 0.01), and poor perceived health status (β = −0.179, p < 0.05). Conclusion These findings suggest that breathing difficulties, including OSA and dyspnea, contribute to decreased HRQOL. This study offers valuable insights for researchers and clinicians, aiding in the development of effective strategies to manage these issues in daily life.

Purpose: We aimed to comprehensively analyze the immune cell and stromal components of tumor microenvironment at the single-cell level and identify tumor heterogeneity among the major top-derived oncogene mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data. Materials and Methods: The scRNA-seq dataset utilized in this study comprised 64369 primary tumor tissue cells from 21 NSCLC patients, focusing on mutations in EGFR, ALK, BRAF, KRAS, TP53, and the wild-type. Results: Tumor immune microenvironment (TIM) analysis revealed differential immune responses across NSCLC mutation subtypes. TIM analysis revealed different immune responses across the mutation subtypes. Two mutation clusters emerged: KRAS, TP53, and EGFR+TP53 mutations (MC1); and EGFR, BRAF, and ALK mutations (MC2). MC1 showed higher tertiary lymphoid structures signature scores and enriched populations of C2-T-IL7R, C3-T/NK-CXCL4, C9-T/NK-NKG, and C1-B-MS4A1 clusters than cluster 2. Conversely, MC2 cells exhibited higher expression levels of TNF, IL1B, and chemokines linked to alternative immune pathways. Remarkably, co-occurring EGFR and TP53 mutations were grouped as MC1. EGFR+TP53 mutations showed upregulation of peptide synthesis and higher synthetic processes, as well as differences in myeloid and T/NK cells compared to EGFR mutations. In T/NK cells, EGFR+TP53 mutations showed a higher expression of features related to cell activity and differentiation, whereas EGFR mutations showed the opposite. Conclusion Our research indicates a close association between mutation types and tumor microenvironment in NSCLC, offering insights into personalized approaches for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose: We aimed to comprehensively analyze the immune cell and stromal components of tumor microenvironment at the single-cell level and identify tumor heterogeneity among the major top-derived oncogene mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data. Materials and Methods: The scRNA-seq dataset utilized in this study comprised 64369 primary tumor tissue cells from 21 NSCLC patients, focusing on mutations in EGFR, ALK, BRAF, KRAS, TP53, and the wild-type. Results: Tumor immune microenvironment (TIM) analysis revealed differential immune responses across NSCLC mutation subtypes. TIM analysis revealed different immune responses across the mutation subtypes. Two mutation clusters emerged: KRAS, TP53, and EGFR+TP53 mutations (MC1); and EGFR, BRAF, and ALK mutations (MC2). MC1 showed higher tertiary lymphoid structures signature scores and enriched populations of C2-T-IL7R, C3-T/NK-CXCL4, C9-T/NK-NKG, and C1-B-MS4A1 clusters than cluster 2. Conversely, MC2 cells exhibited higher expression levels of TNF, IL1B, and chemokines linked to alternative immune pathways. Remarkably, co-occurring EGFR and TP53 mutations were grouped as MC1. EGFR+TP53 mutations showed upregulation of peptide synthesis and higher synthetic processes, as well as differences in myeloid and T/NK cells compared to EGFR mutations. In T/NK cells, EGFR+TP53 mutations showed a higher expression of features related to cell activity and differentiation, whereas EGFR mutations showed the opposite. Conclusion Our research indicates a close association between mutation types and tumor microenvironment in NSCLC, offering insights into personalized approaches for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), dyspnea, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as well as the factorsinfluencing HRQOL. Methods: A total of 129 lung cancer survivors (mean age, 53.4 years; 77 men and 52 women; mean time since diagnosis, 1.6 years; and cancer stage [1/2/3/4/relapse], 43/31/19/34/2, respectively) completed a questionnaire that included demographic and clinical information, as well as questions about the severity of sleep apnea, dyspnea, and HRQOL. The severity of OSA, dyspnea, and HRQOL were assessed using the Berlin questionnaire, the Dyspnea-10 item (FACIT-Dyspnea), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, respectively. Results: The severity of OSA and dyspnea exhibited negative correlations with HRQOL (p < 0.05).Multiple regression analysis revealed that several factors significantly impacted the HRQOLof lung cancer survivors. These included the extent of dyspnea (β = –0.369, p < 0.01), weight loss (β = 0.192, p < 0.01), OSA score (β = −0.215, p < 0.01), stage 2 cancer (β = −0.181, p < 0.01), and poor perceived health status (β = −0.179, p < 0.05). Conclusion These findings suggest that breathing difficulties, including OSA and dyspnea, contribute to decreased HRQOL. This study offers valuable insights for researchers and clinicians, aiding in the development of effective strategies to manage these issues in daily life.