S-1 as an alternative treatment after 5-fluorouracil-induced coronary vasospasm in a patient with small bowel adenocarcinoma: a case report.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapeutic agent used worldwide to treat various solid tumors. It may cause adverse cardiotoxic events, the most common of which is coronary vasospasm. Recently, the 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer recommended S-1 as an alternative therapy after 5-FU-induced cardiotoxicity; however, only limited data on Asian patients are available. Here, we report a case of safe administration of S-1 to a 72-year-old Japanese female patient with metastatic small bowel adenocarcinoma who developed 5-FU-induced coronary vasospasm. While receiving modified FOLFOX6 (5-FU plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin) as palliative chemotherapy, she experienced chest pain with electrocardiographic ST elevation. Chemotherapy was temporarily suspended, but treatment was resumed by switching from modified FOLFOX6 to SOX (S-1 plus oxaliplatin) as the tumor began to worsen. Owing to the adverse event of enteritis, the patient's treatment was switched to S-1 monotherapy after cycle 3, and S-1 monotherapy was continued without any cardiotoxicity. S-1 may be a promising alternative therapy after 5-FU-induced cardiotoxicity.

The Origin of Epithelium with Low-Grade Atypia in Early Gastric Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection causes chronic inflammation and atrophy of the gastric mucosa and thus a high risk of gastric cancer (GC). With the increasing success of HP infection treatment, a larger number of GCs that develop after eradication can be assessed. Several studies have shown that epithelium with low-grade atypia (ELA) is a frequent characteristic of these GCs, but the origin of this condition is unknown. In this study, we compared the mucin phenotype, cellular proliferation, and p53 staining in ELA and cancerous tissues obtained from patients with GC with and without HP eradication. METHODS: The study population consisted of 23 patients with GC that developed after successful HP eradication therapy (eradicated group) and 24 patients with GC and HP infection (infected group). The prevalence of ELA was determined by hematoxylin and eosin staining. Tumor tissue and ELA samples were further analyzed by immunohistochemical staining for Muc5AC, Muc2, p53, and Ki-67. RESULTS: The ELA coverage rate was significantly higher in the eradicated group than in the infected group. Gastric-type mucin was frequently expressed by the ELA, and the mucin phenotypes of ELA and cancerous areas differed in 75% of cases. The Ki-67 labeling index was consistently lower in ELA than in the cancerous mucosa. Fourteen of 21 (66.7%) cancerous lesions, but only 3 ELA samples, were p53-positive. CONCLUSION: In most cases, ELA on the surfaces of GCs seems to have originated from normal gastric cells, not from cancer cells.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 prevalence in saliva and gastric and intestinal fluid in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy in coronavirus disease 2019 endemic areas: Prospective cross-sectional study in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is useful for the early detection and treatment of many diseases; however, GIE is considered a high-risk procedure in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic era. This study aimed to explore the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity in saliva and gastrointestinal fluids to which endoscopy medical staff are exposed. METHODS: The study was a single-center cross-sectional study. From June 1 to July 31, 2020, all patients who underwent GIE at Yokohama City University Hospital were registered. All patients provided 3 mL of saliva. For upper GIE, 10 mL of gastric fluid was collected through the endoscope. For lower GIE, 10 mL of intestinal fluid was collected through the endoscope. The primary outcome was the positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gastrointestinal fluids. We also analyzed serum-specific antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 and patients' background information. RESULTS: A total of 783 samples (560 upper GIE and 223 lower GIE samples) were analyzed. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on saliva samples did not show any positive results in either upper or lower GIE samples. However, 2.0% (16/783) of gastrointestinal fluid samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. No significant differences in age, sex, purpose of endoscopy, medication, or rate of antibody test positivity were found between PCR positive and PCR negative cases. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic patients, even those with no detectable virus in their saliva, had SARS-CoV-2 in their gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopy medical staff should be aware of infection when performing procedures. The study was registered as UMIN000040587.

[A Case in Which the Radial Incision and Cutting(RIC)Method Was Effective for Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation-Resistant Anastomotic Stenosis after Esophageal Cancer Surgery].

In recent years, the radial incision and cutting(RIC)method has been developed as a treatment for intractable anastomotic stenosis after esophageal cancer surgery, and its usefulness is attracting attention. We report a case in which the RIC method was effective for endoscopic balloon dilatation-resistant anastomotic stenosis. The case was a 69-year-old woman. Transthoracic esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection, and narrow gastric tube reconstruction through antethoracic route, were performed for middle thoracic esophageal cancer. The patient suffered from Grade Ⅲa anastomotic leakage, but was discharged relieved. After discharge, the patient needed regular endoscopic balloon dilation for against intractable anastomotic stenosis. RIC was performed for the patient. Although stenosis relapsed after the RIC, the pain during balloon dilatation improved and oral intake can be continued without surgery. The required interval of dilatation was about 2 weeks before RIC, but it has been gradually extended to about 4 weeks after 1 year after the RIC. Moreover, oral intake and body weight of the patient were increased. The RIC method may be useful for intractable anastomotic stenosis after esophageal cancer surgery, and further case accumulation is needed.

Vonoprazan- vs proton-pump inhibitor-based first-line 7-day triple therapy for clarithromycin-susceptible Helicobacter pylori: A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The eradication rate of vonoprazan-based first-line triple therapy (combined with clarithromycin and amoxicillin) (V-AC) was reported to be 97.6% in patients with clarithromycin (CAM)-susceptible Helicobacter pylori in a phase III study, whereas our real-world, prospective, multicenter cohort study yielded an eradication rate <90%. OBJECTIVE: To validate the eradication rate of V-AC using CAM-susceptible testing in a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. METHODS: We included 147 treatment-naïve H. pylori-positive patients [41 with CAM-resistant infections and 106 with CAM-susceptible infections]. The CAM-susceptible group patients were randomized to either the V-AC group (vonoprazan 20 mg bid, amoxicillin 750 mg bid, and clarithromycin 200 or 400 mg bid) or PPI-AC group (lansoprazole 30 mg, rabeprazole 10 mg, or esomeprazole 20 mg bid; amoxicillin 750 mg bid; and clarithromycin 200 or 400 mg bid). All CAM-resistant H. pylori were eradicated by V-AC, as measured by the urea breath test around 8 weeks after eradication. Safety was evaluated by patient questionnaires. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates of V-AC in the CAM-susceptible H. pylori-infected patients were 87.3% (95% confidence interval 75.5%-94.7%) and 88.9% (77.4%-95.8%). The respective eradication rates of PPI-AC were 76.5% (62.5%-87.2%) and 86.7% (73.2%-94.9%). No significant difference was observed between the V-AC and PPI-AC regimes in terms of the intention-to-treat (P = .21) or per-protocol (P = .77) analyses. The questionnaire scores did not differ significantly between the groups. Both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates of V-AC in the CAM-resistant patients were 82.9% (67.9%-92.8%). CONCLUSION: The eradication rate of V-AC treatment in the CAM-susceptible H. pylori-infected patients was <90%, as was that by PPI-AC, thus V-AC is not ideal regimen in CAM-susceptible H. pylori. However, the 82.9% eradication rate of V-AC in the CAM-resistant infections may indicate the potential of V-AC with modified dose, dosing interval, and treatment duration. (UMIN000016337).

The Superiority of Vonoprazan-based First-line Triple Therapy with Clarithromycin: A Prospective Multi-center Cohort Study on Helicobacter pylori Eradication.

Objective We evaluated the safety and efficacy of vonoprazan-based amoxicillin and clarithromycin 7-day triple therapy (VAC) in comparison to proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based (PAC) as a first-line treatment and vonoprazan-based amoxicillin and metronidazole 7-day triple therapy (VAM) in comparison to PPI-based (PAM) as a second-line treatment for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in Japan. Methods We performed a non-randomized, multi-center, parallel-group study to compare first-line VAC to PAC and second-line VAM to PAM. A pre-planned subgroup analysis on CAM resistance was also performed. Safety was evaluated with an adverse effects questionnaire (AEQ), which was completed by patients during therapy. Results The first-line eradication rates (ER) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were 84.9% (95% CI: 81.9-87.6%, n=623) and 86.4% (83.5-89.1%, n=612), respectively, for VAC and 78.8% (75.3-82.0%, n=608) and 79.4% (76.0-82.6%, n=603), respectively, for PAC. The ER of VAC was higher than that of PAC in the ITT (p=0.0061) and PP analyses (p=0.0013). The ERs for VAC in patients with CAM-resistant and CAM-susceptible bacteria were 73.2% (59.7-84.2%, n=56) and 88.9% (83.4-93.1%, n=180), respectively. PAC was associated with higher AEQ scores for diarrhea, nausea, headache, and general malaise. In the second-line ITT and PP analyses VAM achieved ERs of 80.5% (74.6-85.6%, n=216) and 82.4% (76.6-87.3%, n=211), respectively, while PAM achieved ERs of 81.5% (74.2-87.4%, n=146) and 82.1% (74.8-87.9%, n=145), respectively. No significant differences were observed in the ITT (p=0.89) or PP (p=1.0) analyses. Conclusion The ER of first-line VAC was higher than that of PAC, but still <90%. No difference was observed between second-line VAM and PAM. Vonoprazan-based triple therapy was safe and well tolerated.