Junctional adhesion molecule 3 (JAM3) can be used as a prognostic marker in multiple cancer types. However, the potential prognostic role of JAM3 in gastric cancer (GC) remains unclear. The purpose of this research was to gauge JAM3 expression and methylation as potential biomarkers for GC patient survival. Through bioinformatics research, we analyzed JAM3 expression, methylation, prognosis, and immune cell infiltrations. JAM3 methylation acts as a negative regulator of JAM3, leading to reduced expression of JAM3 in GC tissues relative to normal tissues. Patients with GC who expressed little JAM3 have a better chance of living a long time free of the disease, according to the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Through univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis, inadequate JAM3 expression was labeled as an isolated indicator for overall survival (OS). The GSE84437 dataset was also used to confirm JAM3 prognostic role in GC, with consistent findings. A meta-analysis also found that low levels of JAM3 expression were significantly associated with longer OS. Finally, there was a strong correlation between JAM3 expression and a subset of immune cells. According to the TCGA database, low JAM3 expression could predict favorable OS and progression-free-survival (PFS) in GC patients ( P < .05). The univariate and multivariate Cox regression demonstrated that low JAM3 expression was independent biomarker for OS ( P < .05). Moreover, GSE84437 dataset was utilized to verify the prognostic role of JAM3 in GC, and the similar results were reached ( P < .05). A meta-analysis revealed that low JAM3 expression was closely relevant to better OS. Finally, JAM3 expression exhibited a close correlation with some immune cells ( P < .05). JAM3 might be a viable predictive biomarker and likely plays a crucial part in immune cell infiltration in individuals with GC.

Objective:To evaluate the new model of group screening combined with opportunistic screening for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer.Methods:Group screening combined with opportunistic screening was used for gastric cancer screening. (1) Group screening. Cluster sampling was used to screen gastric cancer by endoscopy in high-risk population (aged 40-<70 years) of rural residents in Weihai from July 2017 to December 2020, and biopsy was obtained for histopathology if necessary. Main collection parameters included the detection rate of advanced gastric cancer, early gastric cancer and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN). (2) Opportunistic screening. The changes of the detection rates of early gastric cancer in opportunistic screening in 2 hospitals in Weihai area were observed during the same period of time.Results:(1) In group screening, from July 2017 to December 2020, the first batch of 8 000 cases of gastric cancer screening were completed. The cases of advanced gastric cancer, early gastric cancer and HGIN were 36, 28, and 62, respectively. The detection rates of gastric cancer and early gastric cancer were 0.80% (64/8 000) and 43.75% (28/64), respectively. The proportion of early gastric cancer+HGIN who received endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was 77.78% (70/90), and the rate of curative resection was 100.00%(70/70). (2) Opportunistic screening: from July 2017 to December 2020, the annual early gastric cancer detection rates in opportunistic screening in Wendeng District Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital were 16.67% (1/6), 20.00% (3/15), 23.53% (4/17), and 33.33% (6/18) in the consecutive 4 years, respectively. The annual detection rates of early gastric cancer in opportunistic screening in Ru Shan Peoples Hospital were 14.74% (14/95), 23.80% (60/252), 25.49% (65/255), and 24.04% (50/208), respectively. The detection rates of opportunistic screening for early gastric cancer in hospitals in Weihai city increased year by year.Conclusion:In areas with high incidence of gastric cancer, a certain scale of group screening can lead to a wider range of opportunistic screening, resulting in the increase of the detection rate of early gastric cancer. The new model of diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer is worth recommendation.

To assess carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), platelet distribution width (PDW), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) for gastric cancer’s (GC) diagnostic efficiency, and the use of receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) combined with logistic regression to evaluate multi-index combination’s diagnostic value of GC. 773 GC patients’ clinical data were retrospectively collected in the Weihai Municipal Hospital, affiliated hospital of Shandong University from April 2018 to May 2021, and selected 2368 healthy physical examination patients during the same period as the control group. A total of 3141 samples was included in this study, including 773 cases in the GC group and 2368 cases in the healthy physical examination group. The results of the overall comparison between groups showed that apart from gender, the age differences, CEA, CA19-9, PDW, NLR, and PLR were statistically significant (P < .001). Spearman ranks correlation analysis’s results showed that CA19-9, CEA, PLR, and NLR were correlated with GC patients’ clinical-stage positively, and the correlation coefficients r was 0.249, 0.280, 0.252, 0.262 (all P < .001), and PDW was correlated with the clinical stage negatively (r = −0.186, P < .001). The ROC curve analysis results of CEA, CA19-9, PDW, NLR and PLR showed that CEA’s diagnostic cutoff value for GC was 3.175 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.631, 95% CI: 0.606–0.655, P < .001), the CA19-9’s diagnostic cutoff value is 19.640 (AUC = 0.589, 95% CI: 0.563–0.615, P < .001), PDW’s diagnostic cutoff value is 15.750 (AUC = 0.799, 95% CI: 0.778–0.820, P < .001), NLR’s diagnostic cutoff value was 2.162 (AUC = 0.699, 95% CI: 0.675–0.721, P < .001), and PLR’s diagnostic cutoff value was 149.540 (AUC = 0.709, 95% CI: 0.688–0.732, P < .001). The area under the ROC curve for the combined diagnosis of GC with 5 indicators was 0.877 (95% CI: 0.860–0.894, P < .001), which was better than a single indicator (P < .05). The diagnostic efficiency of combined detection of CEA, CA19-9, PDW, NLR, and PLR is better than that of single index detection alone, which can reduce the misdiagnosis rate of GC effectively.

Background & Goals: We observed that the number of colorectal polyps found intraoperatively was often higher than that encountered preoperatively during elective colonoscopic polypectomy. To evaluate whether more polyps can be detected when they are purposely sought than when they are routinely examined during colonoscopy. Materials and methods: Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into groups A and B. Before colonoscopy was performed, endoscopists were instructed to seek polyps for group A purposely but not for group B. Polypectomy was electively completed. In groups A and B, the cases of elective polypectomy were named groups AR and BR, including groups AR-1 and BR-1, during the first colonoscopy and groups AR-2 and BR-2 during the second colonoscopy for polypectomy, respectively. The following data were calculated: the number of polyps detected (NPD) and the polyp detection rate (PDR) in all cases and the number of polyps missed (NPM) and partial polyp miss rate (PPMR) in the cases of colorectal polyps. Results: A total of 419 cases were included in group A, 421 in group B, 43 in group AR, and 35 in group BR. No significant differences in PDR were found between groups A and B and in PPMR between groups AR-1 and BR-1 (P > .05), although PPMR in group AR-1 was higher than in group AR-2 (P < .05), similar results were found in PPMR between groups BR-1 and BR-2 (P < .05). Conclusion: Purposely seeking for colorectal polyps did not result in more polyps detected compared with routine colonoscopy.