Claudin (CLDN) is a tight junction protein found in human epithelial cells and its altered expression is known to be associated with the progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to investigate the differential expression of CLDN-4 in early gastric cancer (EGC) according to its clinicopathological characteristics. We enrolled 53 patients with EGC who underwent surgical gastric resection from January 2007 to December 2018. The staining intensity of the tumor cells was scored as 0–3, and the percentage of staining was scored as 0–5; high expression was defined if the intensity plus percentage score was 7 or 8, and low expression was defined if the score was 0–6. Among the 53 patients, 16 (30.2%) showed low CLDN-4 expression, while 37 (69.8%) had high CLDN-4 expression. High CLDN-4 expression was significantly associated with intestinal-type EGC (low: 12.5% vs. high: 56.8%, p = 0.003), open-type atrophic change (low: 60.0% vs. high: 90.9%, p = 0.011), and the presence of synchronous tumors (0 vs. 32.4%, p = 0.010), and all 12 EGCs with synchronous tumors showed high CLDN-4 expression. However, expression of CLDN-3, a typical intestinal phenotype CLDN, was neither correlated with CLDN-4 expression nor associated with synchronous tumors. Taken together, high CLDN-4 expression may be considered as an auxiliary tool for screening synchronous tumors in patients with EGC.

No abstract

Background/Aims: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors in the stomach. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of endoscopic treatment for gastric GISTs.Methods: This is a single center, retrospective study that enrolled 135 cases of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) resected by endoscopic procedures and confirmed as GISTs by histopathology from March 2005 to July 2019. The immediate and long-term clinical outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. Results:The mean patient age was 57.9 years, and the mean tumor size was 2.1 cm. Of the tumors, 43.0% were located in the body, followed by the fundus (26.7%) and cardia (17.0%). Most tumors (85.2%) were resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection, followed by endoscopic mucosal resection (6.7%), submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (5.9%), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (2.2%). Macroperforation occurred in 4.4% and microperforation in 6.7% of the cases. The R0 resection rate was 15.6%. However, the rate of complete resection by the endoscopic view was 90.4%, of which 54.8% of cases were in the very-low-risk group, followed by the low-risk group (28.1%), intermediate-risk group (11.9%), and high-risk group (5.2%). During 36.5 months of follow-up, recurrence was found in four (3.4%) of the 118 patients who were monitored for more than 6 months (low-risk group, 1/37 [2.7%]; intermediate-risk group, 2/11 [18.2%]; high-risk group, 1/6 [16.7%]).Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment of a GIST appears to be a feasible procedure in selected cases. However, additional surgery should be considered if the pathologic results correspond to intermediate-or high-risk groups.

Background: Appropriate bowel preparation is essential for effective colonoscopy. Inadequate use of bowel preparation solutions reduces patient compliance, makes the detection of lesions such as adenoma difficult, and increases the risk of complication such as perforation. Current Concepts: A 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution can be safely used for bowel preparation, even in most individuals with underlying diseases. However, it requires a high preparation-volume intake and has poor patient compliance due to its unpleasant taste. Therefore, a 2- or 1- L sulfate-free, PEG-based laxative was developed to, reduce the amount of PEG and improve the taste. Furthermore, simethicon-containing laxative formulation was developed to eliminate gas bubbles. In addition, oral bowel preparation solutions with enema agents and prokinetics were used to improve bowel preparation, but no improvement was observed. Various alternative laxatives are available; however, PEG-based bowel preparation solutions are still recommended in most cases due to their stability. Discussion and Conclusion: Although a 4-L PEG solutions recommended for bowel preparation in most cases, several laxatives have been introduced to overcome its disadvantages. The laxative agent must be selected according to each patient’s specific characteristics. Moreover, the method of taking bowel preparation solutions and additional bowel preparation medications must be carefully chosen. In addition, patient education via various methods, such as using a smartphone, when taking a bowel preparation agent may help improve bowel preparation quality.