Background: Circular RNAs (circRNAs), a new class of regulatory noncoding RNAs, are involved in gene regulation and may play a role in cancer development. The aim of this study was to identify circRNAs involved in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) using bioinformatics analysis. Methods: CircRNA (GSE101684, GSE101586), miRNA (GSE135918), and mRNA (GSE130779) microarray datasets were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database to identify differentially expressed circRNAs (DECs), miRNAs (DEMs), and mRNAs (DEGs) in LUAD. Circinteractome and StarBase were used to predict miRNAs and mRNAs, respectively. A circRNA-miRNA-mRNA-ceRNA network was constructed. Patient survival was analyzed using UALCAN, and a sub-network was established. Realtime quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) was used to verify the expressed of DECs between LUAD tissues and paired adjacent normal tissues. Results: Hsa_circ_0072088 was identified as a differentially expressed (upregulated) circRNA in the two datasets. Intersection analysis identified hsa-miR-532-3p and hsa-miR -942 as the two miRNAs with the highest potential for binding to hsa_circ_0072088. Differential expression analysis and target gene prediction were performed to build a ceRNA network of hsa_circ_0072088 using Circinteractome/StarBase 3.0. Intersection analysis showed that TMEM52,

Summary To evaluate the effects of two different reconstruction routes (the posterior mediastinal route (PR) and the retrosternal route (RR)) on the surgical outcomes of patients after esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from database inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case–control trials on the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing esophagectomy via one of the two routes were included. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. In total, 19 studies were included, 8 were RCTs and 11 were case–control studies. The meta-analysis showed that among the case–control trials, the PR had reduced rates of anastomotic leakage [odds ratio (OR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.43, 0.74), P < 0.01]. In addition, it had reduced rates of anastomotic stenosis [OR = 0.42, 95% CI (0.30, 0.59), P < 0.01] and pulmonary complications [OR = 0.63, 95% CI (0.47, 0.84), P < 0.01]. However, there was no significant difference in cardiac complications [RCTs, relative risk (RR) = 0.57, 95% CI (0.29, 1.11), P = 0.10; case–control trials, OR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.70, 1.62), P = 0.78] or postoperative mortality [RCTs, RR = 0.47, 95% CI (0.19, 1.16), P = 0.10; case–control trials, OR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.32, 1.44), P = 0.31]. Compared with the RR, the PR had reduced rates of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis and pulmonary complications.

Background Mismatch‐repair genes (MMRs) ensure high fidelity in genome editing. Loss of function mutation of MMRs will lead to instability of the genome and increase the incidence of cancers. Human mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) is a member of the MMRs, and its mutation is found in Lynch syndrome (LS). In addition to the high incidence of colorectal cancer, LS patients often have other primary cancers. Here, a case of LS‐associated lung and gastric double primary cancer was reported. Methods Diagnosis of lung and gastric double primary cancer was mainly based on clinical findings, imaging examination, and histopathological data. The tumor tissues and blood samples were collected, and then genomic DNA was extracted and 450 cancer‐related gene alteration screening was conducted by next‐generation sequencing and the functional verification of a mutant gene was carried out using the PCR method. Results We detected the epidermal growth factor receptor L858R, MSH2 R929* and telomerase reverse transcriptase amplification in the lung cancer specimen; CDH1 c.1320+1G>T mutation in the gastric cancer (GC) specimen; and MLH1 c.1896+5G>A germline mutation in the lung and GC specimens by 450 cancer‐related gene mutations detection using next‐generation sequencing technology. MLH1c.1896+5G>A is a novel germline mutation, and it was verified by the PCR subsequently. It was found that it could affect the splicing of intron 16. Nine relatives of three‐generation of the patient were examined and the MLH1 c.1896+5G>A mutation and pedigree analysis were performed. The father's sister without cancer also carries this mutation. Conclusion Diagnosis of LS was mainly depended on the following: the cancer histories of his relatives, multi‐primary cancers of lung and stomach in his own body, MLH1 and MSH2 gene mutations detected in the cancer tissues. The clinical significance of this new MLH1 c.1896+5G>A germline mutation detected in the LS‐associated double primary cancer patient needed further study.

No abstract

No abstract