Search

Activating enhancer-binding protein 2 (AP-2) is a family of transcription factors (TFs) that play crucial roles in regulating embryonic and oncogenic development. In addition to splice isoforms, five major family members encoded by the TFAP2A/B/C/D/E genes have been identified in humans, i.e., AP-2α/β/γ/δ/ε. In general, the first three TFs have been studied more thoroughly than AP-2δ or AP-2ε. Currently, there is a relatively limited body of literature focusing on the AP-2 family in the context of gastroenterological research, and a comprehensive overview of the existing knowledge and recommendations for further research directions is lacking. Herein, we have collected available gastroenterological data on AP-2 TFs, discussed the latest medical applications of each family member, and proposed potential future directions. Research on AP-2 in gastrointestinal tumors has predominantly been focused on the two best-described family members, AP-2α and AP-2γ. Surprisingly, research in the past decade has highlighted the importance of AP-2ε in the drug resistance of gastric cancer (GC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). While numerous questions about gastroenterological disorders await elucidation, the available data undoubtedly open avenues for anti-cancer targeted therapy and overcoming chemotherapy resistance. In addition to gastrointestinal cancers, AP-2 family members (primarily AP-2β and marginally AP-2γ) have been associated with other health issues such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, liver dysfunction, and pseudo-obstruction. On the other hand, AP-2δ has been poorly investigated in gastroenterological disorders, necessitating further research to delineate its role. In conclusion, despite the limited attention given to AP-2 in gastroenterology research, pivotal functions of these transcription factors have started to emerge and warrant further exploration in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach (HAS) is an extremely rare and unique malignant gastric tumor with a significantly worse prognosis than non‐hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach (non‐HAS). The present study explored the clinicopathological features of HAS and non‐HAS patients to provide insights into HAS treatment strategies. Methods: From December 26, 2023, we performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase.com databases for relevant studies. Two authors independently screened the studies, evaluated their quality, extracted data, and performed the analyses. This study was registered with PROSPERO on January 2, 2024. Results: Nine retrospective studies were included for analysis after screening 833 articles. A total of 350 and 924 patients were enrolled in the HAS and non‐HAS groups, respectively. While no significant differences were observed in age, sex, tumor size, T3 or T4 stage, and N2 or N3 stage between the two groups, the HAS group exhibited higher rates of lymph node metastasis (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.19–3.13, p = 0.007), liver metastasis (OR = 3.45, 95% CI: 2.26–5.28, p < 0.001), and vascular invasion (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 2.05–3.71, p < 0.001). Additionally, the HAS group had lower 3‐year survival rates (HR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.70–3.25, p < 0.001) and 5‐year survival rates (HR = 3.63, 95% CI: 1.49–8.88, p = 0.005), but lower rates of lymphatic permeation (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47–0.99, p = 0.040). Conclusion: Based on the current clinical evidence, patients with HAS present distinct clinicopathological features, greater invasiveness, and poorer prognosis than non‐HAS patients. Further research is warranted to develop optimal treatment strategies for HAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this multicentre cohort study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients with gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy by robotic or laparoscopic approaches from 1 March 2010 to 31 December 2018 at 10 high-volume centres in China were selected from institutional databases. Patients receiving RG were matched 1 : 1 by propensity score with patients undergoing LG. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence. Results: Some 2055 patients who underwent RG and 4309 patients who had LG were included. The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 2026 RGs and 2026 LGs. Median follow-up was 41 (i.q.r. 39–58) months for the RG group and 39 (38–56) months for the LG group. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 80.8% in the RG group and 79.5% in the LG group (log rank P = 0.240; HR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.242). Three-year OS rates were 83.9 and 81.8% respectively (log rank P = 0.068; HR 0.87, 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.068) and the cumulative incidence of recurrence over 3 years was 19.3% versus 20.8% (HR 0.95, 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.219), with no difference between groups. Conclusion: RG and LG in patients with gastric cancer are associated with comparable disease-free and overall survival. The present largest multicentre study demonstrated comparable long-term oncological outcomes between robotic (RG) and laparoscopic (LG) gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study provides evidence suggesting that RG could offer a valid surgical alternative for gastric cancer, although its potential advantages may not turn into a survival benefit compared with LG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]