Gastroenterology Research 

About: Gastroenterology Research is an academic journal published by Elmer Press, Inc.. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Population. It has an ISSN identifier of 1918-2805. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 711 publications have been published receiving 5071 citations.

Difference Between Left-Sided and Right-Sided Colorectal Cancer: A Focused Review of Literature.

Abstract: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide with a high mortality rate at the advanced stages. However, colorectal cancer is not a single type of tumor; its pathogenesis depends on the anatomical location of the tumor and differs between right side and left side of the colon. Tumors in the proximal colon (right side) and distal colon (left side) exhibit different molecular characteristics and histology. In the right-sided tumors, mutations in the DNA mismatch repair pathway are commonly observed; and these tumors generally have a flat histology. In the left-sided tumors, chromosomal instability pathway-related mutations, such as KRAS, APC, PIK3CA, p53 mutations are observed and these tumors demonstrate polypoid-like morphology. Therapy responses are totally different between these tumor entities. Left-sided colorectal cancer (LCRC) patients benefit more from adjuvant chemotherapies such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimes, and targeted therapies such as anti- epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy, and have a better prognosis. Right-sided colorectal cancer (RCRC) patients do not respond well to conventional chemotherapies, but demonstrate more promising results with immunotherapies because these tumors have high antigenic load. For the development of effective therapy regimes and better treatment options, it is essential to evaluate right-sided and left-sided tumors as separate entities, and design the therapy regime considering the differences between these tumors.

Rome III functional constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation are similar disorders within a spectrum of sensitization, regulated by serotonin.

Abstract: BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and patients with functional constipation (FC) have similar symptoms, and these disorders overlap in their diagnostic features. Little is known about their overlap in physiology or the involvement of serotonin signaling. We investigated relationships between platelet-depleted plasma concentrations of serotonin, gastrointestinal symptoms, and motor-sensory function in patients with FC or IBS-C compared with healthy volunteers (controls). METHODS: We measured platelet-depleted plasma concentrations of serotonin in fasting and fed individuals with IBS-C (n = 23; 19-50 years old), FC (n = 11; 25-46 years old), and controls (n = 23; 20-49 years old) recruited in Manchester, UK. We also quantified abdominal and bowel-related symptoms, rectal sensitivity, oro-cecal transit, and colonic (whole intestine) transit. RESULTS: Patients with IBS-C or FC had similar baseline symptoms, bowel habits, oro-cecal and colonic transit, and fasting concentrations of serotonin and response to meal ingestion. Only patients with IBS-C had increased symptoms after ingestion of a meal (P < .001)-these patients tended to have lower sensory thresholds than patients with FC. Defecation frequency in the combined group of patients with IBS-C or FC correlated inversely with serotonin concentration (r = -0.4; P = .03). Serotonin concentration also correlated with pain threshold (r = 0.4; P = .02) and stool threshold (r = 0.5; P = .06), which correlated inversely with defecation frequency (r = -0.3; P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: FC and IBS-C, based on Rome III criteria, are not distinct disorders, symptomatically or physiologically. Instead, they appear to lie in a spectrum of visceral sensitivity modulated by serotonin signaling. Symptom response to meal ingestion should be considered in patient classification.

Review of Infectious Etiology of Acute Pancreatitis

Abstract: While gallstones and alcoholism are widely known to be the most common causative agents of acute pancreatitis, about 10% of cases are thought to be caused by infectious microorganisms. These microorganisms include viruses (e.g. mumps, Coxsackie B, and hepatitis), bacteria (e.g. Mycoplasma pneumoniae and leptospirosis), and parasites (e.g. Ascaris lumbricoides, Fasciola hepatica, and hydatid disease). Each organism causes acute pancreatitis through diverse mechanisms. The review is primarily conducted in an attempt to provide a better understanding of the possibility of acute pancreatitis presenting as a complication relating to these organisms, and the aim is to guide future diagnoses, management, and predictions of complications.

Colon Cancer: A Clinician's Perspective in 2019.

Abstract: Colon cancer is a common preventable cancer. With the adoption of widespread colon cancer screening in the developed countries, the incidence and mortality of colon cancer have decreased in the targeted population. But unfortunately, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have been increasing over the last 25 years in the young adults below the age of 50. There is disparity in benefit, i.e. reduction in risk of death between right-sided and left-sided colon cancer by screening colonoscopy. The reason could be multifactorial and various measures have been taken to decrease this disparity. Although most of the screened populations are average risk individuals, a minority of the population have various risk factors for developing colon cancer and need to follow specific colon cancer screening guidelines. Gene mutations (adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), deleted in colon cancer (DCC), K-ras, p53, B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine kinase (BRAF), mismatch repair genes) and microsatellite instability lead to the development of colon cancer. Although various non-invasive methods of colon cancer screening are now available, colonoscopy remains the gold standard of colon cancer screening and adenoma detection rate is now being used as the quality metrics in screening colonoscopy. Although Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) and American College of Physicians (ACP) recommend initiating screening colonoscopy at age 50 years in all individuals except African Americans who should begin screening colonoscopy at age 45 years, the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends initiating screening colonoscopy at age 45 years in all individuals irrespective of race and ethnicity. Low-volume split-dose prep has been found to be as effective as high-volume split-dose prep and more tolerable to patients with increased compliance. Boston bowel preparation scale is recommended to measure the quality of colon cleansing. CRC is curative if it is diagnosed at an early stage but various palliative treatment options (endoscopic, oncologic and surgical) are available in advanced stages of this cancer. Adequate number of lymph node assessment during surgery is essential in accurate staging of CRC. Checkpoint inhibitors have been found to have dramatic response and durable clinical benefit in dMMR/MSI-H metastatic CRC. Different genetic and immune-oncologic research trials are ongoing for early detection and better management of CRC.

Management of Esophageal Perforation in Adults

Abstract: Perforation of esophagus in the adult is a very morbid condition with high morbidity and mortality. The ideal treatment is controversial. The main causes for esophageal perforation in adults are iatrogenic, traumatic, spontaneous and foreign bodies. The morbidity and mortality rate is directly related to the delay in diagnosis and initiation of optimum treatment. The reported mortality from treated esophageal perforation is 10% to 25%, when therapy is initiated within 24 hours of perforation, but it could rise up to 40% to 60% when the treatment is delayed beyond 48 hours. Primary closure of the perforation site and wide drainage of the mediastinum is recommended if perforation is detected in less than 24 hours. Treatment option for delayed or missed rupture of esophagus is not very clear and is controversial. Recently a substantial number of patients with esophageal perforation are being managed by nonoperative measures. Patients with small perforations and minimal extraesophageal involvement may be better managed by nonoperative treatment Major prognostic factors determining mortality are the etiology and site of the injury, the presence of underlying esophageal pathology, the delay in diagnosis and the method of treatment. For optimum outcome for management of esophageal perforations in adults a multidisciplinary approach is needed.