USP36 plays an oncogenic role in colorectal cancer cells.

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have emerged as crucial contributors to tumor relapse and chemoresistance, making them promising targets for treating cancers like colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the mechanisms governing CSC maintenance in CRC remain poorly characterized. In this study, we investigated the potential role of ubiquitin-specific protease 36 (USP36) in CRC. Our bioinformatic analysis revealed a significant upregulation of USP36 expression in CRC, and high USP36 levels were associated with poor prognosis in CRC patients. Furthermore, we observed an increase in USP36 expression in CRC cell lines. Knockdown of USP36 resulted in reduced viability, cell cycle arrest, increased apoptosis, and impaired migration and invasion in CRC cells. Additionally, the colony formation and sphere formation ability, as well as the expression of stem cell markers and pluripotent transcription factors, were substantially reduced in USP36-deficient CRC cells. These findings emphasize the role of USP36 as an oncogene in CRC, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic target for the treatment of CRC.

A short-term study of laparoscopic-dominant individualised levator ani resection in abdominoperineal resection: A retrospective investigation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to investigate if laparoscopic-dominant abdominoperineal resection (LDAPR) with individualised levator ani resection inhibits local recurrence (LR) and prolongs survival as compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rectal cancer surgery cases were retrospectively identified from September 2014 to December 2019. LDAPR-treated group (55 patients) and the APR-treated group (71 patients) were included in the study. The operation time, circumferential resection margin (CRM), intraoperative tumor surgery (ITP), post-operative complications, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and LR were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: The CRM and ITP were significantly reduced in the LDAPR as compared to the APR group (3.6% vs. 16.9%, t = 5.522, P = 0.019; 3.6% vs. 14.1%, t = 3.926, P = 0.048). In terms of post-operative complications, the incidence of urinary retention in LDAPR was significantly reduced than the APR group (10.9% vs. 25.4%, χ2 = 4.139, P = 0.041). Similarly, perineal pain at 6 months or 1 year after surgery was significantly down-regulated in LDAPR than in the APR group (72.7% vs. 88.7%, χ2 = 5.320, P = 0.021; 18.2% vs. 43.2%, χ2 = 8.288, P = 0.004). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the post-operative complications between the LDAPR and APR groups. Finally, LDAPR led to a significantly improved 2-year OS and a reduced LR compared to APR. CONCLUSION: LDAPR reduces CMR, ITP and LR and simplified the perineum operation, subsequently protecting the pelvic autonomic nerves. Compared to the conventional APR, LDAPR is a promising procedure worth adopting for rectal cancer treatment.

Development and validation of neoadjuvant rectal score-based signature nomograms to predict overall survival and disease-free survival in locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective, double center, cohort study.

AIM: To evaluate the prognostic significance of the NAR score and develop nomograms for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treated after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) combined with total meso-rectal excision (TME) surgery to predict prognostic. METHODS: Retrospective collection among LARC patients treated at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital (training cohort) and Fujian Medical University Affiliated Zhangzhou Hospital (external validation cohort) between Jan 10, 2011 and Dec 28, 2021. The NAR score was calculated by formula: [5pN-3(cT-pT) + 12]^2/9.61. NAR score low (< 8), intermediate (8-16), and high (> 16). RESULTS: 1665 patients in the training cohort and 256 patients in the external validation cohorts were enrolled. Lower NAR score was significantly associated with better cumulative incidence of OS, DFS, local recurrence (LR), and distant metastasis (DM) (all P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicates that NAR score, distance to the anal verge, no.253 LN metastasis, post-CRT carbohydrate antigen 19-9, tumor regression grade, and surgery method are independent predictors of OS and DFS (all P < 0.001). Among these independent factors, the NAR score had the highest area under the curve (AUC) and the nomograms to predict OS and DFS were generated. The AUCs for the accuracy of the prediction OS were 1 year = 0.742, 3 years = 0.749, 5 years = 0.713; prediction DFS were 1 year = 0.727, 3 years = 0.739, 5 years = 0.718, the models have good accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The NAR score can effectively classify patients with LARC into groups with varying outcomes of OS, DFS, LR, and DM. Moreover, the novel nomograms comprising the NAR score were developed and validated to help predict OS and DFS.

Short-term clinical outcomes and five-year survival analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

Background: The cosmetic benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) are easily noticeable, but its principles of aseptic and tumor-free procedure have caused controversy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE or conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid and rectal cancer at our hospital between January 2018 and December 2018. The study aimed to compare the general characteristics, perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and five-year follow-up results between the two groups. Results: A total of 121 eligible patients were enrolled, with 52 underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE and 69 underwent CLS. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), TNM stage, etc. (P > 0.05). However, the NOSE group exhibited significantly shorter total incision length and longer operation time compared to the CLS group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of positive rate of bacterial culture, incidence rates of intraabdominal infections or anastomotic leakage (P > 0.05). Furthermore, during follow-up period there was no statistically significant difference observed between these two groups concerning overall survival rate and disease-free survival outcomes (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The management of surgical complications in CLS is exemplary, with NOSE presenting a sole advantage in terms of incision length albeit at the cost of prolonged operative time. Therefore, NOSE may be deemed appropriate for patients who place high emphasis on postoperative cosmetic outcomes.