Hyunyong Lee

Protein kinase, membrane‑associated tyrosine/threonine 1 is associated with the progression of colorectal cancer

The protein kinase, membrane‑associated tyrosine/threoninexa01 (PKMYT1) is known to inhibit precocious entry into mitosis by phosphorylating CDK1 at Thr14 and Tyr15 residues. However, the functional importance of PKMYT1 in colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unknown. Thus, it is important to elucidate whether PKYMT1 is indispensable in the tumorigenesis of CRC. To investigate the functional importance of PKMYT1 in CRC tumorigenesis, PKMYT1 was knocked down in CRC cell lines such as SW480, SW620, HCT116 and HT29 by siRNA. PKMYT1‑depleted CRC cells were analyzed to determine proliferation, migration, invasion and colony forming ability. In addition, 179xa0patient‑derived samples were used to find the correlation of the expression of PKMYT1 with the prognosis of CRC patients. By siRNA‑mediated loss of function of PKMYT1, we observed that proliferation, migration, invasion and colony forming ability of CRC cell lines were significantly impaired in the absence of PKMYT1 inxa0vitro. Furthermore, by analyzing patient‑derived samples, we revealed the association of PKMYT1 with the overall survival rate of CRC patients. These results indicated that PKMYT1 plays an essential oncogenic role in CRC and could serve as a good therapeutic target for the treatment of CRC.

P20.08: Ultrasonographic findings among transferred intrauterine fetal loss

The measurement of the lower uterine segment (LUS) during the third trimester seems to be the best technique available to estimate the risk of uterine rupture, but there is a great heterogeneity in the techniques used. It appears necessary to standardize the interventions and their teaching prior to extend its use to clinical settings beyond well-defined research purposes. Recent studies suggest that firsttrimester evaluation of LUS could be used as well. We report a case of a woman with a very large first-trimester uterine scar defect. Case: A woman with prior cesarean had an evaluation of her uterine scar at the time of her 11–13 weeks ultrasound. The transvaginal examination revealed a large uterine scar defect (width: 8 mm; depth: 10 mm) with a residual myometrium thickness of 2.4 mm (figure). She was advised of the potential risk of uterine scar dehiscence and uterine rupture later in pregnancy and serial ultrasound examinations were planned. However, the following transvaginal ultrasound performed at 16, 24 and 35 weeks’ gestation did not reveal a scar defect anymore and the residual myometrium thickness remained around 2.3 mm. She had no evidence of uterine scar dehiscence at her 35 weeks’ ultrasound, neither at the time of her repeated cesarean. Discussion: While the third-trimester evaluation of LUS thickness for diagnosis of uterine scar dehiscence and prevention of uterine rupture is becoming a common procedure in several countries, first and second trimester evaluation of uterine scar is not as well described. First-trimester evidence of ‘‘wedge defect’’, ‘‘hypoechogenic areas’’ and residual myometrial thickness on ultrasound have been reported as potential markers of uterine scar defect. However the current case suggests that residual myometrial thickness is possibly the most reliable predictor of uterine scar defect in each trimester. Prospective longitudinal cohort studies including first and third trimester evaluation of uterine scar using transvaginal ultrasound are warranted.