| 1. |
- Hess, Timo, et al.
(author)
-
Dissecting the genetic heterogeneity of gastric cancer
- 2023
-
In: EBioMedicine. - : Elsevier. - 2352-3964. ; 92
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is clinically heterogenous according to location (cardia/non-cardia) and histopathology (diffuse/intestinal). We aimed to characterize the genetic risk architecture of GC according to its subtypes. Another aim was to examine whether cardia GC and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and its precursor lesion Barrett's oesophagus (BO), which are all located at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), share polygenic risk architecture.Methods: We did a meta-analysis of ten European genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of GC and its subtypes. All patients had a histopathologically confirmed diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma. For the identification of risk genes among GWAS loci we did a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) and expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) study from gastric corpus and antrum mucosa. To test whether cardia GC and OAC/BO share genetic aetiology we also used a European GWAS sample with OAC/BO.Findings: Our GWAS consisting of 5816 patients and 10,999 controls highlights the genetic heterogeneity of GC according to its subtypes. We newly identified two and replicated five GC risk loci, all of them with subtype-specific association. The gastric transcriptome data consisting of 361 corpus and 342 antrum mucosa samples revealed that an upregulated expression of MUC1, ANKRD50, PTGER4, and PSCA are plausible GC-pathomechanisms at four GWAS loci. At another risk locus, we found that the blood-group 0 exerts protective effects for non-cardia and diffuse GC, while blood-group A increases risk for both GC subtypes. Furthermore, our GWAS on cardia GC and OAC/BO (10,279 patients, 16,527 controls) showed that both cancer entities share genetic aetiology at the polygenic level and identified two new risk loci on the single-marker level.Interpretation: Our findings show that the pathophysiology of GC is genetically heterogenous according to location and histopathology. Moreover, our findings point to common molecular mechanisms underlying cardia GC and OAC/BO.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mathus-Vliegen, Elisabeth, et al.
(author)
-
Consensus guidelines for the use of bowel preparation prior to colonic diagnostic procedures: colonoscopy and small bowel video capsule endoscopy
- 2013
-
In: Current Medical Research and Opinion. - : Informa Healthcare. - 1473-4877 .- 0300-7995. ; 29:8, s. 931-945
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonic diagnostic procedures is essential to ensure adequate visualisation. Scope: This consensus aims to provide guidance as to the appropriate use of bowel preparation for a range of defined clinical circumstances. A consensus group from across Europe was convened and met to discuss appropriate bowel preparation. The use of polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium picosulphate and sodium phosphate (NaP), together with other agents, prokinetics and simethicone, in colonoscopy and small bowel video capsule endoscopy were considered. A systematic review of the literature was carried out and additional unpublished data was obtained from the members of the consensus group where required. Recommendations were graded according to the level of evidence. Findings: PEG-based regimens are recommended first line for both procedures, since their use is supported by good efficacy and safety data. Sodium-picosulphate-based regimens are recommended second line as their cleansing efficacy appears less than PEG-based regimens. NaP is not recommended for bowel cleansing due to the potential for renal damage and other adverse events. However, the use of NaP is acceptable in patients in whom PEG or sodium picosulphate is ineffective or not tolerated. NaP should not be used in patients with chronic kidney disease, pre-existing electrolyte disturbances, congestive heart failure, cirrhosis or a history of hypertension. The timing of the dose, dietary restrictions, use in special patient groups and recording of the quality of bowel preparation are also considered for patients undergoing colonoscopy. During the development of the guidelines the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) issued guidance on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The ESGE guidelines and these consensus guidelines share many recommendations; differences between the guidelines are reviewed. Conclusion: The use of bowel preparation should be tailored to the individual patient and their specific clinical circumstances.
|
|
