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.

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: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Objective: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome with a significantly increased risk of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Current standard practice involves universal screening for LS in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal or endometrial cancer using a multi-step screening protocol (MSP). However, MSP may not always accurately identify LS cases. To address this limitation, we compared the diagnostic performance of immediate germline sequencing (IGS) with MSP in a high-risk group. Methods: A total of 31 Taiwanese women with synchronous or metachronous endometrial and colorectal malignancies underwent MSP which included immunohistochemical staining of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation analysis, and germline sequencing to identify pathogenic variants. All patients who were excluded during MSP received germline sequencing for MMR genes to simulate IGS for the detection of LS. Results: Our findings indicate that IGS surpassed MSP in terms of diagnostic yield (29.0% vs.19.4%, respectively) and sensitivity (90% vs. 60%, respectively). Specifically, IGS successfully identified nine LS cases, which is 50% more than the number detected through MSP.Additionally, germline methylation analysis revealed one more LS case with constitutional MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, bringing the total LS cases to ten (32.3%). Intriguingly, we observed no significant differences in clinical characteristics or overall survival between patients with and without LS in our cohort. Conclusion Our study suggests that IGS may potentially offer a more effective approach compared to MSP in identifying LS among high-risk patients. This advantage is evident when patients have been pre-selected utilizing specific clinical criteria.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Objective: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome with a significantly increased risk of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Current standard practice involves universal screening for LS in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal or endometrial cancer using a multi-step screening protocol (MSP). However, MSP may not always accurately identify LS cases. To address this limitation, we compared the diagnostic performance of immediate germline sequencing (IGS) with MSP in a high-risk group. Methods: A total of 31 Taiwanese women with synchronous or metachronous endometrial and colorectal malignancies underwent MSP which included immunohistochemical staining of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation analysis, and germline sequencing to identify pathogenic variants. All patients who were excluded during MSP received germline sequencing for MMR genes to simulate IGS for the detection of LS. Results: Our findings indicate that IGS surpassed MSP in terms of diagnostic yield (29.0% vs.19.4%, respectively) and sensitivity (90% vs. 60%, respectively). Specifically, IGS successfully identified nine LS cases, which is 50% more than the number detected through MSP.Additionally, germline methylation analysis revealed one more LS case with constitutional MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, bringing the total LS cases to ten (32.3%). Intriguingly, we observed no significant differences in clinical characteristics or overall survival between patients with and without LS in our cohort. Conclusion Our study suggests that IGS may potentially offer a more effective approach compared to MSP in identifying LS among high-risk patients. This advantage is evident when patients have been pre-selected utilizing specific clinical criteria.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.