Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Background/Aims: Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) is a promising endoscopic intervention for proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the effect of ARMA on esophageal motility remains unclear. Methods: Twenty patients with PPI-dependent GERD receiving ARMA were prospectively enrolled. Comprehensive self-report symptom questionnaires, endoscopy, 24-hour impedance-pH monitoring, and high-resolution impedance manometry were performed and analyzed before and 3 months after ARMA. Results: All ARMA procedures were performed successfully. Symptom scores, including GerdQ (11.16 ± 2.67 to 9.11 ± 2.64, P = 0.026) and reflux symptom index (11.63 ± 5.62 to 6.11 ± 3.86, P = 0.001), improved significantly, while 13 patients (65%) reported discontinuation of PPI. Total acid exposure time (5.84 ± 4.63% to 2.83 ± 3.41%, P = 0.024) and number of reflux episodes (73.05 ± 19.34 to 37.55 ± 22.71, P < 0.001) decreased significantly after ARMA. Improved esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function, including increased lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure (13.89 ± 10.78 mmHg to 21.68 ± 11.5 mmHg, P = 0.034), 4-second integrated relaxation pressure (5.75 ± 6.42 mmHg to 9.99 ± 5.89 mmHg, P = 0.020), and EGJ-contractile integral(16.42 ± 16.93 mmHg · cm to 31.95 ± 21.25 mmHg · cm, P = 0.016), were observed. Esophageal body contractility also increased significantly (distal contractile integral, 966.85 ± 845.84 mmHg · s · cm to 1198.8 ± 811.74 mmHg · s · cm, P = 0.023). Patients with symptom improvement had better pre-AMRA esophageal body contractility. Conclusions ARMA effectively improves symptoms and reflux burden, EGJ barrier function, and esophageal body contractility in patients with PPIdependent GERD during short-term evaluation. Longer follow-up to clarify the sustainability of ARMA is needed.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Zinc finger protein 639 (ZNF639) is often found within the overlapping amplicon of PIK3CA, and previous studies suggest its involvement in the pathogenesis of esophageal and oral squamous cell carcinomas. However, its expression and significance in breast cancer remain uncharacterized. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis of ZNF639 was performed using tissue microarrays.Functional studies, including colony formation, Transwell cell migration, and in vivo metastasis, were conducted on breast tumor cells with ZNF639 knockdown via small interfering RNA transfection. Results: Reduced ZNF639 immunoreactivity was observed in 82% of the breast cancer samples, independent of hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, ZNF639 expression was associated with favorable survival outcomes, including recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.89) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16– 1.05). ZNF639 knockdown increased clonogenicity, cell motility, and lung metastasis in NOD/ SCID mice. Following the ZNF639 knockdown, the expression of Snail1, vimentin, and C-C chemokine ligand 20 (CCL20) was upregulated, and the changes in cell phenotype mediated by ZNF639 were reversed by the subsequent knockdown of CCL20. Conclusion Low ZNF639 expression is a novel prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in patients with breast cancer.

Purpose: Zinc finger protein 639 (ZNF639) is often found within the overlapping amplicon of PIK3CA, and previous studies suggest its involvement in the pathogenesis of esophageal and oral squamous cell carcinomas. However, its expression and significance in breast cancer remain uncharacterized. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis of ZNF639 was performed using tissue microarrays.Functional studies, including colony formation, Transwell cell migration, and in vivo metastasis, were conducted on breast tumor cells with ZNF639 knockdown via small interfering RNA transfection. Results: Reduced ZNF639 immunoreactivity was observed in 82% of the breast cancer samples, independent of hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, ZNF639 expression was associated with favorable survival outcomes, including recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.89) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16– 1.05). ZNF639 knockdown increased clonogenicity, cell motility, and lung metastasis in NOD/ SCID mice. Following the ZNF639 knockdown, the expression of Snail1, vimentin, and C-C chemokine ligand 20 (CCL20) was upregulated, and the changes in cell phenotype mediated by ZNF639 were reversed by the subsequent knockdown of CCL20. Conclusion Low ZNF639 expression is a novel prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in patients with breast cancer.

Background/Aims: Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) is a promising endoscopic intervention for proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the effect of ARMA on esophageal motility remains unclear. Methods: Twenty patients with PPI-dependent GERD receiving ARMA were prospectively enrolled. Comprehensive self-report symptom questionnaires, endoscopy, 24-hour impedance-pH monitoring, and high-resolution impedance manometry were performed and analyzed before and 3 months after ARMA. Results: All ARMA procedures were performed successfully. Symptom scores, including GerdQ (11.16 ± 2.67 to 9.11 ± 2.64, P = 0.026) and reflux symptom index (11.63 ± 5.62 to 6.11 ± 3.86, P = 0.001), improved significantly, while 13 patients (65%) reported discontinuation of PPI. Total acid exposure time (5.84 ± 4.63% to 2.83 ± 3.41%, P = 0.024) and number of reflux episodes (73.05 ± 19.34 to 37.55 ± 22.71, P < 0.001) decreased significantly after ARMA. Improved esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function, including increased lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure (13.89 ± 10.78 mmHg to 21.68 ± 11.5 mmHg, P = 0.034), 4-second integrated relaxation pressure (5.75 ± 6.42 mmHg to 9.99 ± 5.89 mmHg, P = 0.020), and EGJ-contractile integral(16.42 ± 16.93 mmHg · cm to 31.95 ± 21.25 mmHg · cm, P = 0.016), were observed. Esophageal body contractility also increased significantly (distal contractile integral, 966.85 ± 845.84 mmHg · s · cm to 1198.8 ± 811.74 mmHg · s · cm, P = 0.023). Patients with symptom improvement had better pre-AMRA esophageal body contractility. Conclusions ARMA effectively improves symptoms and reflux burden, EGJ barrier function, and esophageal body contractility in patients with PPIdependent GERD during short-term evaluation. Longer follow-up to clarify the sustainability of ARMA is needed.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Zinc finger protein 639 (ZNF639) is often found within the overlapping amplicon of PIK3CA, and previous studies suggest its involvement in the pathogenesis of esophageal and oral squamous cell carcinomas. However, its expression and significance in breast cancer remain uncharacterized. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis of ZNF639 was performed using tissue microarrays.Functional studies, including colony formation, Transwell cell migration, and in vivo metastasis, were conducted on breast tumor cells with ZNF639 knockdown via small interfering RNA transfection. Results: Reduced ZNF639 immunoreactivity was observed in 82% of the breast cancer samples, independent of hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, ZNF639 expression was associated with favorable survival outcomes, including recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.89) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16– 1.05). ZNF639 knockdown increased clonogenicity, cell motility, and lung metastasis in NOD/ SCID mice. Following the ZNF639 knockdown, the expression of Snail1, vimentin, and C-C chemokine ligand 20 (CCL20) was upregulated, and the changes in cell phenotype mediated by ZNF639 were reversed by the subsequent knockdown of CCL20. Conclusion Low ZNF639 expression is a novel prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in patients with breast cancer.

Background/Aims: Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) is a promising endoscopic intervention for proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the effect of ARMA on esophageal motility remains unclear. Methods: Twenty patients with PPI-dependent GERD receiving ARMA were prospectively enrolled. Comprehensive self-report symptom questionnaires, endoscopy, 24-hour impedance-pH monitoring, and high-resolution impedance manometry were performed and analyzed before and 3 months after ARMA. Results: All ARMA procedures were performed successfully. Symptom scores, including GerdQ (11.16 ± 2.67 to 9.11 ± 2.64, P = 0.026) and reflux symptom index (11.63 ± 5.62 to 6.11 ± 3.86, P = 0.001), improved significantly, while 13 patients (65%) reported discontinuation of PPI. Total acid exposure time (5.84 ± 4.63% to 2.83 ± 3.41%, P = 0.024) and number of reflux episodes (73.05 ± 19.34 to 37.55 ± 22.71, P < 0.001) decreased significantly after ARMA. Improved esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function, including increased lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure (13.89 ± 10.78 mmHg to 21.68 ± 11.5 mmHg, P = 0.034), 4-second integrated relaxation pressure (5.75 ± 6.42 mmHg to 9.99 ± 5.89 mmHg, P = 0.020), and EGJ-contractile integral(16.42 ± 16.93 mmHg · cm to 31.95 ± 21.25 mmHg · cm, P = 0.016), were observed. Esophageal body contractility also increased significantly (distal contractile integral, 966.85 ± 845.84 mmHg · s · cm to 1198.8 ± 811.74 mmHg · s · cm, P = 0.023). Patients with symptom improvement had better pre-AMRA esophageal body contractility. Conclusions ARMA effectively improves symptoms and reflux burden, EGJ barrier function, and esophageal body contractility in patients with PPIdependent GERD during short-term evaluation. Longer follow-up to clarify the sustainability of ARMA is needed.