95 research outputs found

    Study of the Completion of Follow-up After Helicobacter pylori Eradication Therapy

    Get PDF
    Background: Because no therapeutic regimens have an eradication rate of 100%, post-treatment evaluation is necessary to ensure that adequate eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori has been provided. The fact that not all patients are evaluated after eradication therapy is a serious concern for both the medical care system and medical economy.Method: We performed a retrospective study of 411 patients who received first-line H. pylori eradication therapy at Fuyoukai Murakami Hospital from October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2016. We calculated the rate of post-treatment follow-up at 1 year after completing the eradication therapy. In addition, we excluded 76 patients who definitely received post-treatment evaluation because of follow-up appointments with gastroenterologists (n = 29) or return visits to other physicians (n = 47) and included 335 patients in the final study population. We used logistic regression models for identifying the relevant factors contributing to the completion of post-eradication follow-up.Results: The rate of completion of post-eradication follow-up was 78.8% (324/411). Multivariate analysis revealed that the adjusted odds ratios for age (≄ 48 years), gender (female) and preventive measures for gastric cancer (esophagogastroduodenoscopy after radiographic screening for gastric cancer and a desire to be examined for H. pylori infection) were 1.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11–3.09; p < 0.05], 1.89 [95% CI: 1.07–3.34; p < 0.05] and 4.01 [95% CI: 1.61–10.0; p < 0.01], respectively.Conclusion: Age ≄ 48 years, female gender and preventive measures for gastric cancer were independently related to a higher rate of completion of post-eradication follow-up

    Dietary fiber showed no preventive effect against colon and rectal cancers in Japanese with low fat intake: an analysis from the results of nutrition surveys from 23 Japanese prefectures

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Since Fuchs' report in 1999, the reported protective effect of dietary fiber from colorectal carcinogenesis has led many researchers to question its real benefit. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between diet, especially dietary fiber and fat and colorectal cancer in Japan. METHODS: A multiple regression analysis (using the stepwise variable selection method) was performed using the standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of colon and rectal cancer in 23 Japanese prefectures as objective variables and dietary fiber, nutrients and food groups as explanatory variables. RESULTS: As for colon cancer, the standardized partial correlation coefficients were positively significant for fat (1,13, P = 0.000), seaweeds (0.41, P = 0.026) and beans (0.45, P = 0.017) and were negatively significant for vitamin A (-0.63, P = 0.003), vitamin C (-0.42, P = 0.019) and yellow-green vegetables (-0.37, P = 0.046). For rectal cancer, the standardized partial correlation coefficient in fat (0.60, P = 0.002) was positively significant. Dietary fiber was not found to have a significant relationship with either colon or rectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show any protective effect of dietary fiber in subjects with a low fat intake (Japanese) in this analysis, which supports Fuchs' findings in subjects with a high fat intake (US Americans)

    Integrative Annotation of 21,037 Human Genes Validated by Full-Length cDNA Clones

    Get PDF
    The human genome sequence defines our inherent biological potential; the realization of the biology encoded therein requires knowledge of the function of each gene. Currently, our knowledge in this area is still limited. Several lines of investigation have been used to elucidate the structure and function of the genes in the human genome. Even so, gene prediction remains a difficult task, as the varieties of transcripts of a gene may vary to a great extent. We thus performed an exhaustive integrative characterization of 41,118 full-length cDNAs that capture the gene transcripts as complete functional cassettes, providing an unequivocal report of structural and functional diversity at the gene level. Our international collaboration has validated 21,037 human gene candidates by analysis of high-quality full-length cDNA clones through curation using unified criteria. This led to the identification of 5,155 new gene candidates. It also manifested the most reliable way to control the quality of the cDNA clones. We have developed a human gene database, called the H-Invitational Database (H-InvDB; http://www.h-invitational.jp/). It provides the following: integrative annotation of human genes, description of gene structures, details of novel alternative splicing isoforms, non-protein-coding RNAs, functional domains, subcellular localizations, metabolic pathways, predictions of protein three-dimensional structure, mapping of known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), identification of polymorphic microsatellite repeats within human genes, and comparative results with mouse full-length cDNAs. The H-InvDB analysis has shown that up to 4% of the human genome sequence (National Center for Biotechnology Information build 34 assembly) may contain misassembled or missing regions. We found that 6.5% of the human gene candidates (1,377 loci) did not have a good protein-coding open reading frame, of which 296 loci are strong candidates for non-protein-coding RNA genes. In addition, among 72,027 uniquely mapped SNPs and insertions/deletions localized within human genes, 13,215 nonsynonymous SNPs, 315 nonsense SNPs, and 452 indels occurred in coding regions. Together with 25 polymorphic microsatellite repeats present in coding regions, they may alter protein structure, causing phenotypic effects or resulting in disease. The H-InvDB platform represents a substantial contribution to resources needed for the exploration of human biology and pathology

    A case of mucoepidermoid carcinoma arising in mature cystic teratoma

    Get PDF
    ć”ć·ŁçČ˜èĄšçšźç™ŒăŻć”ć·Łæ‚Șæ€§è…«ç˜ăźäž­ă§æ„”ă‚ăŠăŸă‚ŒăȘ甄çč”ćž‹ă«ćˆ†éĄžă•ă‚Œă‚‹ă€‚ä»Šć›žă€æˆ‘ă€…ăŻæˆç†Ÿćšąèƒžæ€§ć„‡ćœąçšźă‚ˆă‚Šç™șç”Ÿă—ăŸć”ć·ŁçČ˜èĄšçšźç™Œăźç—‡äŸ‹ă‚’ç”Œéš“ă—ăŸăźă§ć ±ć‘Šă™ă‚‹ă€‚ç—‡äŸ‹ăŻă€69æ­łă€ć„łæ€§ă€äžĄćŽăźæˆç†Ÿćšąèƒžæ€§ć„‡ćœąè…«ă‚’èȘă‚ăŸăŒă€SCC é«˜ć€€ăšCT、MRI ă«ăŠć·ŠćŽăźè…«ç˜ć†…ă«é€ ćœ±ă•ă‚Œă‚‹ć……ćźŸæ€§éƒšćˆ†ă‚’èȘă‚ăŸă“ăšă€ć°è…žă«æ”žæœ€ă‚’ç–‘ă†æ‰€èŠ‹ă‚’èȘă‚ăŸă“ず、からæ‚Șæ€§è»ąćŒ–ă‚’ç–‘ă„ă€æ‰‹èĄ“ă‚’æ–œèĄŒă—ăŸă€‚é–‹è…čæ™‚ă€äžĄćŽć”ć·Łè…«ç˜ă‚’èȘă‚ă€ć·Šć”ć·Łè…«ç˜ăŻSçŠ¶ç”è…žăšćŒ·ć›șă«ç™’ç€ă—ăŠă„ăŸă€‚ć”ć·Łè…«ç˜ć……ćźŸæ€§éƒšćˆ†ăźèż…é€Ÿç—…ç†ă«ăŠäœŽćˆ†ćŒ–ç™Œăšèšșæ–­ă—ă€ć˜çŽ”ć­ćźźć…šæ‘˜ć‡șèĄ“ă€äžĄćŽä»˜ć±žć™šæ‘˜ć‡șèĄ“ă€SçŠ¶ç”è…žćˆäœ”ćˆ‡é™€ă€éȘšç›€ăƒȘăƒłăƒ‘çŻ€éƒ­æž…èĄ“ă€ć€§ç¶Čćˆ‡é™€èĄ“ă‚’æ–œèĄŒă—ăŸă€‚ç—…ç†ç”„çč”ć­Šçš„ă«ăŻă€ć·Šć”ć·Łè…«ç˜ăźćšąèƒžćŁè‚„ćŽšéƒšă«çšźè†šä»˜ć±žć™šă€è„‚è‚Șçč”ă€è»ŸéȘšç”„çč”、ăƒȘăƒłăƒ‘çƒé›†ç°‡ă€ć”ć·Łé–“èłȘをèȘă‚ă€ć……ćźŸæˆćˆ†ă«äœŽćˆ†ćŒ–ăȘ攞最性扁ćčłäžŠçšźç™Œă‚’èȘă‚ăŸă€‚ć……ćźŸæˆćˆ†ă«ăŻă€çČ˜èĄšçšźç™Œă«ç‰čćŸŽçš„ăȘă€è±ŠćŻŒăȘ胞䜓çȘæ¶ČPASおよびAlcian blue 染è‰Čé™œæ€§ïŒ‰ă‚’æœ‰ă™ă‚‹ç•°ćž‹çŽ°èƒžăŒèƒžć·ŁçŠ¶~侍漌慹ăȘè…șçźĄçŠ¶ă‚’ć‘ˆă™ă‚‹é ˜ćŸŸăŒă‚ă‚Šă€æˆç†Ÿćšąèƒžæ€§ć„‡ćœąè…«ă‚ˆă‚Šç™șç”Ÿă—ăŸć”ć·ŁçČ˜èĄšçšźç™ŒIIb期(pT2bN0M0)ずèšșæ–­ă—ăŸă€‚èĄ“ćŸŒèŁœćŠ©ćŒ–ć­Šç™‚æł•ăšă—ăŠDCïŒˆăƒ‰ă‚»ă‚żă‚­ă‚»ăƒ«ă€ă‚«ăƒ«ăƒœăƒ—ăƒ©ăƒăƒłïŒ‰ç™‚æł•ă‚’æ–œèĄŒă—ă€èĄ“ćŸŒ1ćčŽ8ăƒ¶æœˆçŸćœšă€ć†ç™șをèȘă‚ăȘい。雑èȘŒæŽČ茉論

    Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

    Get PDF
    Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≄1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≀6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

    Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

    The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

    Get PDF
    The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.other authors: Yasuhiro Norisue, Satoru Hashimoto, Daisuke Hasegawa, Junji Hatakeyama, Naoki Hara, Naoki Higashibeppu, Nana Furushima, Hirotaka Furusono, Yujiro Matsuishi, Tasuku Matsuyama, Yusuke Minematsu, Ryoichi Miyashita, Yuji Miyatake, Megumi Moriyasu, Toru Yamada, Hiroyuki Yamada, Ryo Yamamoto, Takeshi Yoshida, Yuhei Yoshida, Jumpei Yoshimura, Ryuichi Yotsumoto, Hiroshi Yonekura, Takeshi Wada, Eizo Watanabe, Makoto Aoki, Hideki Asai, Takakuni Abe, Yutaka Igarashi, Naoya Iguchi, Masami Ishikawa, Go Ishimaru, Shutaro Isokawa, Ryuta Itakura, Hisashi Imahase, Haruki Imura, Takashi Irinoda, Kenji Uehara, Noritaka Ushio, Takeshi Umegaki, Yuko Egawa, Yuki Enomoto, Kohei Ota, Yoshifumi Ohchi, Takanori Ohno, Hiroyuki Ohbe, Kazuyuki Oka, Nobunaga Okada, Yohei Okada, Hiromu Okano, Jun Okamoto, Hiroshi Okuda, Takayuki Ogura, Yu Onodera, Yuhta Oyama, Motoshi Kainuma, Eisuke Kako, Masahiro Kashiura, Hiromi Kato, Akihiro Kanaya, Tadashi Kaneko, Keita Kanehata, Ken-ichi Kano, Hiroyuki Kawano, Kazuya Kikutani, Hitoshi Kikuchi, Takahiro Kido, Sho Kimura, Hiroyuki Koami, Daisuke Kobashi, Iwao Saiki, Masahito Sakai, Ayaka Sakamoto, Tetsuya Sato, Yasuhiro Shiga, Manabu Shimoto, Shinya Shimoyama, Tomohisa Shoko, Yoh Sugawara, Atsunori Sugita, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuji Suzuki, Tomohiro Suhara, Kenji Sonota, Shuhei Takauji, Kohei Takashima, Sho Takahashi, Yoko Takahashi, Jun Takeshita, Yuuki Tanaka, Akihito Tampo, Taichiro Tsunoyama, Kenichi Tetsuhara, Kentaro Tokunaga, Yoshihiro Tomioka, Kentaro Tomita, Naoki Tominaga, Mitsunobu Toyosaki, Yukitoshi Toyoda, Hiromichi Naito, Isao Nagata, Tadashi Nagato, Yoshimi Nakamura, Yuki Nakamori, Isao Nahara, Hiromu Naraba, Chihiro Narita, Norihiro Nishioka, Tomoya Nishimura, Kei Nishiyama, Tomohisa Nomura, Taiki Haga, Yoshihiro Hagiwara, Katsuhiko Hashimoto, Takeshi Hatachi, Toshiaki Hamasaki, Takuya Hayashi, Minoru Hayashi, Atsuki Hayamizu, Go Haraguchi, Yohei Hirano, Ryo Fujii, Motoki Fujita, Naoyuki Fujimura, Hiraku Funakoshi, Masahito Horiguchi, Jun Maki, Naohisa Masunaga, Yosuke Matsumura, Takuya Mayumi, Keisuke Minami, Yuya Miyazaki, Kazuyuki Miyamoto, Teppei Murata, Machi Yanai, Takao Yano, Kohei Yamada, Naoki Yamada, Tomonori Yamamoto, Shodai Yoshihiro, Hiroshi Tanaka & Osamu Nishid

    The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

    Get PDF
    The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.other authors: Satoru Hashimoto,Daisuke Hasegawa,Junji Hatakeyama,Naoki Hara,Naoki Higashibeppu,Nana Furushima,Hirotaka Furusono,Yujiro Matsuishi,Tasuku Matsuyama,Yusuke Minematsu,Ryoichi Miyashita,Yuji Miyatake,Megumi Moriyasu,Toru Yamada,Hiroyuki Yamada,Ryo Yamamoto,Takeshi Yoshida,Yuhei Yoshida,Jumpei Yoshimura,Ryuichi Yotsumoto,Hiroshi Yonekura,Takeshi Wada,Eizo Watanabe,Makoto Aoki,Hideki Asai,Takakuni Abe,Yutaka Igarashi,Naoya Iguchi,Masami Ishikawa,Go Ishimaru,Shutaro Isokawa,Ryuta Itakura,Hisashi Imahase,Haruki Imura,Takashi Irinoda,Kenji Uehara,Noritaka Ushio,Takeshi Umegaki,Yuko Egawa,Yuki Enomoto,Kohei Ota,Yoshifumi Ohchi,Takanori Ohno,Hiroyuki Ohbe,Kazuyuki Oka,Nobunaga Okada,Yohei Okada,Hiromu Okano,Jun Okamoto,Hiroshi Okuda,Takayuki Ogura,Yu Onodera,Yuhta Oyama,Motoshi Kainuma,Eisuke Kako,Masahiro Kashiura,Hiromi Kato,Akihiro Kanaya,Tadashi Kaneko,Keita Kanehata,Ken-ichi Kano,Hiroyuki Kawano,Kazuya Kikutani,Hitoshi Kikuchi,Takahiro Kido,Sho Kimura,Hiroyuki Koami,Daisuke Kobashi,Iwao Saiki,Masahito Sakai,Ayaka Sakamoto,Tetsuya Sato,Yasuhiro Shiga,Manabu Shimoto,Shinya Shimoyama,Tomohisa Shoko,Yoh Sugawara,Atsunori Sugita,Satoshi Suzuki,Yuji Suzuki,Tomohiro Suhara,Kenji Sonota,Shuhei Takauji,Kohei Takashima,Sho Takahashi,Yoko Takahashi,Jun Takeshita,Yuuki Tanaka,Akihito Tampo,Taichiro Tsunoyama,Kenichi Tetsuhara,Kentaro Tokunaga,Yoshihiro Tomioka,Kentaro Tomita,Naoki Tominaga,Mitsunobu Toyosaki,Yukitoshi Toyoda,Hiromichi Naito,Isao Nagata,Tadashi Nagato,Yoshimi Nakamura,Yuki Nakamori,Isao Nahara,Hiromu Naraba,Chihiro Narita,Norihiro Nishioka,Tomoya Nishimura,Kei Nishiyama,Tomohisa Nomura,Taiki Haga,Yoshihiro Hagiwara,Katsuhiko Hashimoto,Takeshi Hatachi,Toshiaki Hamasaki,Takuya Hayashi,Minoru Hayashi,Atsuki Hayamizu,Go Haraguchi,Yohei Hirano,Ryo Fujii,Motoki Fujita,Naoyuki Fujimura,Hiraku Funakoshi,Masahito Horiguchi,Jun Maki,Naohisa Masunaga,Yosuke Matsumura,Takuya Mayumi,Keisuke Minami,Yuya Miyazaki,Kazuyuki Miyamoto,Teppei Murata,Machi Yanai,Takao Yano,Kohei Yamada,Naoki Yamada,Tomonori Yamamoto,Shodai Yoshihiro,Hiroshi Tanaka,Osamu NishidaGuideline
    • 

    corecore