Overexpression of MPC1 inhibits the proliferation, migration, invasion, and stem cell-like properties of gastric cancer cells.

Invasion and metastasis are major malignant characteristics of human gastric cancer (GC), but the molecular mechanisms underlying the invasion and metastasis of GC cells remain elusive. MPC1, a key factor that controls pyruvate transportation through the inner mitochondrial membrane, was reported to be downregulated and correlated with poor prognosis in several cancers. However, the effects of MPC1 on human GC have not been illustrated. In this study, we investigated the potential role of MPC1 in the proliferation, migration, invasion, and stem cell-like properties of human GC cells and evaluated its prognostic significance for patients with GC. We found that MPC1 protein and mRNA levels were significantly decreased in GC tissues and cell lines. Low MPC1 expression was associated with tumor T stage, N stage, and advanced tumor node metastasis stage. Decreased MPC1 expression was an independent prognostic marker and correlated with poor overall survival of patients with GC. Furthermore, overexpression of MPC1 inhibited the proliferation, migration, invasion, and stem cell-like properties of GC cells. These findings suggest that MPC1 may be a novel prognostic marker and a potential therapeutic target in human GC.

Can S-1 replace fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer? A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

It remains to be seen whether S-1 can be a replacement for infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1 with 5-FU in AGC.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing S-1 with 5-FU for AGC were eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.Seven trials involving 2443 patients were included. Compared with 5-FU, S-1 showed no significant prolongation of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.83-1.01], P = 0.07) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.70-1.13], P = 0.35), but longer time to treatment failure (HR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.56-0.97], P = 0.03). The objective response rates were comparable (risk ratio [RR] = 1.36, 95% CI [0.95, 1.96], P = 0.10). Regarding treatment-related deaths and hematological toxicities, there was significant heterogeneity between Asian and non-Asian trials, and subgroup analysis was applied. In Asian patients, there was a significant increase in hematological toxicities such as leukopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.08, 1.37], P = 0.001; grade 3-4: RR = 2.21, 95% CI [1.52, 3.21], P < 0.0001), neutropenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.11, 1.48], P = 0.0005; grade 3-4: RR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.11, 3.17], P = 0.02), and thrombocytopenia (grade 1-4: RR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.22, 2.41], P = 0.002) in S-1-containing regimens compared with 5-FU-containing regimens, but without significant difference in treatment-related mortality rate (risk difference [RD] = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.01], P = 0.68). In non-Asian patients, S-1-containing regimens were, however, associated with significantly fewer treatment-related deaths (RD = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, -0.00], P = 0.04), as well as less all grade 1-4 and grade 3-4 hematological toxicities except anemia. There was no significant heterogeneity in nonhematologic toxicities between Asian and non-Asian trials. Lower incidence of grade 1-4 nausea, diarrhea, mucositis, grade 3-4 mucositis, increased creatinine, and decreased calculated creatinine clearance was observed in S-1-containing regimens.S-1 could not improve OS, but increase some hematological toxicities in Asian patients. Therefore, special attention on hematological toxicities should be paid to Asian patients because S-1 is administered on an outpatient basis.

Proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition and TGRY anastomosis for proximal gastric cancer.

AIM: To compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy with jejunal interposition (PGJI) with those undergoing total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis (TGRY). METHODS: From January 2009 to January 2011, thirty-five patients underwent PGJI, and forty-one patients underwent TGRY. The surgical efficacy and short-term follow-up outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no differences in the demographic and clinicopathological characteristics. The mean operation duration and postoperative hospital stay in the PGJI group were statistically longer than those in the TGRY group (P = 0.00). No anastomosis leakage was observed in two groups. No statistically significant difference was found in endoscopic findings, Visick grade or serum albumin level. The single-meal food intake in the PGJI group was more than that in the TGRY group (P = 0.00). The PG group showed significantly better hemoglobin levels in the second year (P = 0.02). The two-year survival rate was not significantly different (PGJI vs TGRY, 93.55% vs 92.5%, P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: PGJI is a safe, radical surgical method for proximal gastric cancer and leads to better outcomes in terms of the single-meal food intake and hemoglobin level, compared with TGRY in the short term.