Combination treatment of inflammatory bowel disease:Present status and future perspectives

The treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease(IBD),especially those with severe or refractory disease,represents an important challenge for the clinical gastroenterologist.It seems to be no exaggeration to say that in these patients,not only the scientific background of the gastroenterologist is tested,but also the abundance of“gifts”that he should possess(insight,intuition,determ-ination,ability to take initiative,etc.)for the successful outcome of the treatment.In daily clinical practice,depending on the severity of the attack,IBD is treated with one or a combination of two or more pharmaceutical agents.These combin-ations include not only the first-line drugs(e.g.,mesalazine,corticosteroids,antibiotics,etc)but also second-and third-line drugs(immunosuppressants and biologic agents).It is a fact that despite the significant therapeutic advances there is still a significant percentage of patients who do not satisfactorily respond to the treatment applied.Therefore,a part of these patients are going to surgery.In recent years,several small-size clinical studies,reviews,and case reports have been published combining not only biological agents with other drugs(e.g.,immunosuppressants or corticosteroids)but also the combination of two biologi-cal agents simultaneously,especially in severe cases.In our opinion,it is at least a strange(and largely unexplained)fact that we often use combinations of drugs in a given patient although studies comparing the simultaneous administration of two or more drugs with monotherapy are very few.As mentioned above,there is a timid tendency in the literature to combine two biological agents in severe cases unresponsive to the applied treatment or patients with severe extraintestinal manifestations.The appropriate dosage,the duration of the administration,the suitable timing for checking the clinical and laboratory outcome,as well as the treatment side-effects,should be the subject of intense clinical research shortly.In this editorial,we attempt to summarize the existing data regarding the already applied combination therapies and to humbly formulate thoughts and suggestions for the future application of the combination treatment of biological agents in a well-defined category of patients.We suggest that the application of biomarkers and artificial intelligence could help in establishing new forms of treatment using the available modern drugs in patients with IBD resistant to treatment.

Immunotherapy of gastric cancer:Present status and future perspectives

In this editorial,we comment on the article entitled“Advances and key focus areas in gastric cancer immunotherapy:A comprehensive scientometric and clinical trial review(1999-2023),”which was published in the recent issue of the World Journal of Gastroenterology.We focused on the results of the authors’bibliometric analysis concerning gastric cancer immunotherapy,which they analyzed in depth by compiling the relevant publications of the last 20 years.Before that,we briefly describe the most recent data concerning the epidemiological parameters of gastric cancer(GC)in different countries,attempting to give an interpretation based on the etiological factors involved in the etiopathogenesis of the neoplasm.We then briefly discuss the conservative treatment(chemotherapy)of the various forms of this malignant neoplasm.We describe the treatment of resectable tumors,locally advanced neoplasms,and unresectable(advanced)cases.Special attention is given to modern therapeutic approaches with emphasis on immunotherapy,which seems to be the future of GC treatment,especially in combination with chemotherapy.There is also a thorough analysis of the results of the study under review in terms of the number of scientific publications,the countries in which the studies were conducted,the authors,and the scientific centers of origin,as well as the clinical studies in progress.Finally,an attempt is made to draw some conclusions and to point out possible future directions.

Early-onset gastrointestinal cancer:An epidemiological reality with great significance and implications

During the last few years,epidemiological data from many countries suggest that the incidence and prevalence of many cancers of the digestive system are shifting from the older to the younger ages,the so-called“early-onset cancer”.This is particularly evident in colorectal cancer and secondarily in other malignant digestive neoplasms,mainly stomach and in a lesser degree pancreas,and biliary tract.It should be emphasized that data concerning digestive neoplasms,except for those referring to the colon and stomach,could be characterized as rather insufficient.The exact magnitude of the shift in younger ages is expected to become clearer shortly,as long as relevant epidemiological data from many parts of the world would be available.The most important question concerns the etiology of this phenomenon,since its magnitude cannot be explained solely by the better diagnostic methodology and the preventive programs applied in many countries.The existing data support the assumption that a number of environ-mental factors may play a primary role in influencing carcinogenesis,sometimes from childhood.Changes that have appeared in the last decades related mainly to eating habits,consistency of gut microbiome and an increase of obese people interacting with genetic factors,ultimately favor the process of carcinogenesis.Even these factors however,are not entirely sufficient to explain the age-related changes in the frequency of digestive neoplasms.Studies of the individual effect of each of the already known factors or factors likely to be involved in the etiology of this phenomenon and studies using state-of-the-art technologies to accurately determine the degree of the population exposure to these factors are required.In this article,we attempt to describe the epidemiological data supporting the age-shifting of digestive malignancies and their possible pathogenesis.Finally,we propose some measures regarding the attitude of the scientific community to this alarming phenomenon.

Molecular markers(PECAM-1,ICAM-3,HLA-DR)determine prognosis in primary non-Hodgkin's gastric lymphoma patients

AIM： To investigate the prognostic significance of PECAM-1, ICAM-3 and HLA-DR antigens in patients with primary non-Hodgkin＇s gastric lymphoma. METHODS： We immunohistochemically studied PECAM-1, ICAM-3 and HLA-DR antigen expression in 36 B-cell MALT-type primary gastric lymphoma patients. Ten non-malignant and ten healthy gastric tissue specimens were used as controls. Clinicopathological and survival data were correlated with the staining results. RESULTS： HLA-DR antigen expression was detected in 33 gastric lymphoma patients （91.7%） and 6 nonmalignant patients （54.5%）. PECAM-1 stained tumor cells of 10 patients （27.8%）, endothelial cells of 9 patients （25%） and inflammatory infiltrate of 4 patients （40%） with benign gastric disease. ICAM-3 expression was observed on the tumor cells of 17 patients （47.2%）, while 5 non-malignant patients （50%） were stained positive as well. None of the healthy controls was stained for any of the genes studied. In the multivariate analysis, HLA-DR antigen and PECAM-1 were proved to be statistically significant independent prognostic factors associated with a favourable and an unfavourable prognosis respectively （P= 0.009 and P= 0.003）. In the univariate analysis, PECAM-1（＋）/ICAM-3（-） and HLA-DR（-）/ICAM-3（-） patients exhibited a significantly decreased overall survival compared to those with the exactly opposite gene expression patterns （P=0.0041 and P= 0.0091, respectively）. Those patients who were HLA-DR（＋ ）/ICAM-3（＋ ）/PECAM-I（-） （n = 8） had a significantly higher survival rate compared to the rest of the group （n = 24） （P= 0.0289）. CONCLUSION： PECAM-1, ICAM-3 and HLA-DR are representative markers of tumor expansion potential and host immune surveillance respectively. Their combined use may help us to identify high-risk patients who could benefit from more aggressive therapeutic protocols.