Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is defined as an acute, autoimmune polyradiculoneuropathy. It is a rare disease that occurs at a rate of 1.11 cases per 100,000 person-years. However, once infected, up to 20% of patients develop severe disability, and approximately 5% die. There have been reports of GBS in different cancers. Among them, there are 6 previous reports of GBS in small cell lung cancer. Here, we report a case of a 52-year-old man who was diagnosed with GBS in the setting of small cell lung cancer with chemotherapy.

Serrated polyps are classified into 3 distinct types: hyperplastic polyp, sessile serrated adenoma, or transitional serrated adenoma. A serrated adenoma is a precursor lesion for colorectal carcinoma. Serrated polyps are commonly found in the colorectum but have rarely been described in other parts of the gastrointestinal tract. Serrated adenomas in the small intestine may represent aggressive lesions with high malignant potential, according to some reports. A 66-year-old man with no significant medical history underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for general examination. He had a 1-cm sized, Yamada type IV polyp, with focal white patch in the second portion of the duodenum. The biopsy result revealed gastric metaplasia and chronic inflammation. He wanted regular follow -up examinations. The follow-up EGDs were done every year. There were no changes in the shape and size of the polyp. The pathologic findings were unchanged. Then, he underwent EGD for general medical check-up again 5 years after the first detection. The size of the polyp was slightly increased. The biopsy result revealed serrated polyp, unclassified. Endoscopic mucosal resection was done. The pathologic result revealed a 0.8 × 0.5-cm sized, well differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma. Carcinomas are multifocally spread on the traditional serrated adenoma, and the proportion of the adenocarcinoma component is approximately 50%. The tumor had invaded the lamina propria but confined to the mucosa. The resection margins were negative, and no lymphovascular invasion or perineural invasion was seen. Abdominal pelvic computed tomography and positron emission tomography showed no other solid organ involvement or metastasis. Surveillance follow-up EGDs were done after 3 months and 1 year. There was no evidence of recurrence.

AIMTo compare the efficacy of fixed-time split dose and split dose of an oral sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation.METHODSThis is study was prospective, randomized controlled study performed at a single Institution (2013-058). A total of 204 subjects were assigned to receive one of two sodium picosulfate regimens (i.e., fixed-time split or split) prior to colonoscopy. Main outcome measurements were bowel preparation quality and subject tolerability.RESULTSThere was no statistical difference between the fixed-time split dose regimen group and the split dose regimen group (Ottawa score mean 2.57 ± 1.91 vs 2.80 ± 2.51, P = 0.457). Cecal intubation time and physician’s satisfaction of inspection were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.428, P = 0.489). On subgroup analysis, for afternoon procedures, the fixed-time split dose regimen was equally effective as compared with the split dose regimen (Ottawa score mean 2.56 ± 1.78 vs 2.59 ± 2.27, P = 0.932). There was no difference in tolerability or compliance between the two groups. Nausea was 21.2% in the fixed-time split dose group and 14.3% in the split dose group (P = 0.136). Vomiting was 7.1% and 2.9% (P = 0.164), abdominal discomfort 7.1% and 4.8% (P = 0.484), dizziness 1% and 4.8% (P = 0.113), cold sweating 1% and 0% (P = 0.302) and palpitation 0% and 1% (P = 0.330), respectively. Sleep disturbance was two (2%) patients in the fixed-time split dose group and zero (0%) patient in the split dose preparation (P = 0.143) group.CONCLUSIONA fixed-time split dose regimen with sodium picosulfate is not inferior to a split dose regimen for bowel preparation and equally effective for afternoon colonoscopy.