Purpose: In this trial, we investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole for hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. Here, we report the clinical outcome in postmenopausal women with HR-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant letrozole according to estrogen receptor (ER) expression levels. Methods: In this multi-institutional, open-label, observational study, postmenopausal patients with HR-positive breast cancer received adjuvant letrozole (2.5 mg/daily) for 5 years unless they experienced disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or withdrew their consent. The patients were stratified into the following 3 groups according to ER expression levels using a modified Allred score (AS): low, intermediate, and high (AS 3–4, 5–6, and 7–8, respectively). ER expression was centrally reviewed. The primary objective was the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate. Results: Between April 25, 2010, and February 5, 2014, 440 patients were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 62.0 months, the 5-year DFS rate in all patients was 94.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.8–96.6). The 5-year DFS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates did not differ according to ER expression; the 5-year DFS rates were 94.3% and 94.1%in the low-to-intermediate and high expression groups, respectively (p = 0.6), and the corresponding 5-year RFS rates were 95.7% and 95.4%, respectively (p = 0.7). Furthermore, 25 patients discontinued letrozole because of drug toxicity. Conclusion Treatment with adjuvant letrozole showed very favorable treatment outcomes and good tolerability among Korean postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer, independent of ER expression.

Purpose: In this trial, we investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole for hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. Here, we report the clinical outcome in postmenopausal women with HR-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant letrozole according to estrogen receptor (ER) expression levels. Methods: In this multi-institutional, open-label, observational study, postmenopausal patients with HR-positive breast cancer received adjuvant letrozole (2.5 mg/daily) for 5 years unless they experienced disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or withdrew their consent. The patients were stratified into the following 3 groups according to ER expression levels using a modified Allred score (AS): low, intermediate, and high (AS 3–4, 5–6, and 7–8, respectively). ER expression was centrally reviewed. The primary objective was the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate. Results: Between April 25, 2010, and February 5, 2014, 440 patients were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 62.0 months, the 5-year DFS rate in all patients was 94.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.8–96.6). The 5-year DFS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates did not differ according to ER expression; the 5-year DFS rates were 94.3% and 94.1%in the low-to-intermediate and high expression groups, respectively (p = 0.6), and the corresponding 5-year RFS rates were 95.7% and 95.4%, respectively (p = 0.7). Furthermore, 25 patients discontinued letrozole because of drug toxicity. Conclusion Treatment with adjuvant letrozole showed very favorable treatment outcomes and good tolerability among Korean postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer, independent of ER expression.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Neuropepetide Y (NPY) is involved in the regulation of several gut functions, but the neuronal action of NPY has not been fully investigated. This study was designed to investigate the effect and mechanism of action of NPY on motility in the proximal and distal rat colon. METHODS: Rat colon with an intact superior mesenteric artery was isolated. After a basal period, NPY was administered at concentrations of 14 pM, 70 pM, 140 pM, and 280 pM. Intraluminal pressures were monitored in the proximal and distal colon. The contractile response was expressed as a percent change of motility indices over the basal level. After a pre-infusion of atropine (AT), tetrodotoxin (TTX), propranolol, hexamethonium, and phentolamine, NPY was infused at a concentration of 140 pM, and pressures were monitored. RESULTS: NPY increased the colonic motility at concentrations of 14, 70, 140, and 280 pM in the proximal colon (28.5+/-28.2%, 48.4+/-34.3%, 122.9+/-97.3%, 68.2+/-28.1%, respectively) and in the distal colon (44.9+/-25.9%, 103.8+/-72.0%, 237.1+/-131.0%, 93.0+/-63.9%, respectively) in a dose-dependent manner. The enhancing effect of NPY (140 pM) on colonic motility was significantly suppressed by pretreatment with atropine, propranolol, and TTX. However, the effect of NPY was not inhibited by hexamethonium or phentolamine. CONCLUSION: NPY increases colonic motility. The enhancing effect of NPY on colonic motility may require cholinergic input via muscarinic receptors or adrenergic input via beta-receptors.
Animals ; Atropine ; Colon ; Hexamethonium ; Mesenteric Artery, Superior ; Neurons ; Neuropeptide Y ; Neuropeptides ; Phentolamine ; Propranolol ; Rats ; Receptors, Muscarinic ; Tetrodotoxin

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is a rare autosomal dominant disorder in which multiple hamartomatous polyps are present in the gastrointestinal tract in association with distinctive mucocutaneous pigmentation. A single hamartomatous polyp arising in a patient without pigmentation or familial history of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is termed a solitary Peutz-Jeghers polyp; such a case is rare and would result in a case report being presented even in other countries. We experienced two cases of a solitary Peutz-Jeghers polyp that developed in the rectum, and report the cases with a review of the literature.
Gastrointestinal Tract ; Humans ; Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome ; Pigmentation ; Polyps ; Rectum

PURPOSE: The combination of conservative surgery and radiotherapy is currently accepted as the preferred treatment for most patents with clinical stage I or II breast cancer. However, there is large amount of controversy concerning the optimal means of selecting patients and the details of the treatment technique. Breast cancer patients are being treated both in university hospitals and in community hospitals. Generally, the radiation therapy is not available in many community hospitals. Radiation therapy, which generally follows either a mastectomy or conservative surgery, is an important procedure. Therefore, the type of hospital facilities may influence which surgical procedures are selected. The authors conducted this study to analyse the current patterns of care for early invasive breast cancer in a hospital without a radiation therapy unit, even though the patient could receive such treatment from another affiliated hospital. METHODS: 131 cases of stage I and II breast cancer patients were reviewed between 1987 and 1997, and the types of treatments including surgery, radiation therapy and systemic therapy, were analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: The surgical procedures used were mainly a modified radical mastectomy (124/131, 94.7%), followed by breast conservation surgery (4/131, 3.1%), a total mastectomy (2/131, 1.5%) and a radical mastectomy (1/131, 0.8%). Radiation therapy was applied to 19 stage II patients (N=105), but not to any of the stage I patients (N=26). Systemic adju-vant therapy was done with chemotherapy (39/131, 29.8%), hormone therapy (17/131, 13.0%) and a combination of both modalities (67/131, 51.1%), with an exception of 8 cases. CONCLUSION:Breast c0onservation therapy for breast cancer patients was underutilized. The selection of the therapeutic method may be influenced by the facilities of the particular hospital. For proper treatment of early stage breast cancer, a surgeon must keep in close contact with bothe a radiologist and a radiotherapist, even in other affiliated hospitals.
Breast Neoplasms* ; Breast* ; Drug Therapy ; Hospitals, Community ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Mastectomy ; Mastectomy, Modified Radical ; Mastectomy, Radical ; Mastectomy, Simple ; Radiotherapy ; Retrospective Studies

PURPOSE: The combination of conservative surgery and radiotherapy is currently accepted as the preferred treatment for most patents with clinical stage I or II breast cancer. However, there is large amount of controversy concerning the optimal means of selecting patients and the details of the treatment technique. Breast cancer patients are being treated both in university hospitals and in community hospitals. Generally, the radiation therapy is not available in many community hospitals. Radiation therapy, which generally follows either a mastectomy or conservative surgery, is an important procedure. Therefore, the type of hospital facilities may influence which surgical procedures are selected. The authors conducted this study to analyse the current patterns of care for early invasive breast cancer in a hospital without a radiation therapy unit, even though the patient could receive such treatment from another affiliated hospital. METHODS: 131 cases of stage I and II breast cancer patients were reviewed between 1987 and 1997, and the types of treatments including surgery, radiation therapy and systemic therapy, were analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: The surgical procedures used were mainly a modified radical mastectomy (124/131, 94.7%), followed by breast conservation surgery (4/131, 3.1%), a total mastectomy (2/131, 1.5%) and a radical mastectomy (1/131, 0.8%). Radiation therapy was applied to 19 stage II patients (N=105), but not to any of the stage I patients (N=26). Systemic adjuvant therapy was done with chemotherapy (39/131, 29.8%), hormone therapy (17/131, 13.0%) and a combination of both modalities (67/131, 51.1%), with an exception of 8 cases. CONCLUSION: Breast conservation therapy for breast cancer patients was underutilized. The selection of the therapeutic method may be influenced by the facilities of the particular hospital. For proper treatment of early stage breast cancer, a surgeon must keep in close contact with bothe a radiologist and a radiotherapist, even in other affiliated hospitals.
Breast Neoplasms* ; Breast* ; Drug Therapy ; Hospitals, Community ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Mastectomy ; Mastectomy, Modified Radical ; Mastectomy, Radical ; Mastectomy, Simple ; Radiotherapy ; Retrospective Studies

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of this study was to discover the physiologic difference of a postprandial motor response in different segments of the colon between patients with irritable bowel syndrome and healthy subjects. METHODS: Irritable bowel syndrome patients are categorized into three groups according to their main symptoms; loose stool-dominant (A, n=5), abdominal pain-dominant (B, n=5), constipation-dominant (C, n=6) and the normal control group (n=5). The intraluminal pressure activity was measured with a colonoscopically positioned multilumen manometric catheter. The change of the colonic motility index (MI) is presented as a percent change (mean+/-SE%) over the basal period in response to a meal. RESULTS: 1) In the transverse, descending and sigmoid colon of healthy subjects, the percentage changes in the basal MI during the first 30 min after the meal are significantly increased (p < 0.05-0.01). 2) In the sigmoid colon, the percentage changes in the basal MI during the first 30 min after the meal were 62+/-18 in A, 29+/-18 in B, 12+/-8 in C and 306+/-102% in heathy subjects respectively, which shows a significant difference between the MI of control and healthy subjects (p < 0.05). 3) In B and C, the percentage changes in the basal MI during the first 30 min after the meal in the descending colon were 105+/-38, 11+/-7, respectively, which shows a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.05). In A and C, the percentage changes in the basal MI during the first 30 min after the meal in the sigmoid colon was 62+/-18, 12+/-8, respectively, which shows a significant change between the two groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that postprandial intraluminal pressure differences play a role in the pathophysiology of irritable bowel syndrome.
Catheters ; Colon* ; Colon, Descending ; Colon, Sigmoid ; Humans ; Irritable Bowel Syndrome* ; Meals ; Motor Activity*

No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.
Pneumoperitoneum* ; Subcutaneous Emphysema*