Purpose: Limited treatment options exist for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after the failure of taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy. Here, we report the safety and efficacy of ifosfamide and mesna in patients with mCRPC after the failure of taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy (NCT06236789). Materials and Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer who had failed taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy received ifosfamide 2,500 mg/m2 and mesna 1,500 mg/m2 on days 1–3, repeated every 21 days. Safety, objective response rate, disease control rate, reduction in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration by >50% (PSA50) or >90% (PSA90), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Results: A total of 47 patients with mCRPC were included in the study. The median number of lines of treatment was 5 (range, 3 to 7). All patients were previously administered docetaxel and novel hormonal therapies including abiraterone (51.1%) and/or enzalutamide (61.7%). Thirty-eight patients (80.9%) were administered cabazitaxel. The objective response and disease control rates were 21.3% and 80.9%, respectively. PSA50 and PSA90 were achieved in 31.9% and 10.6%, respectively. During a median follow-up duration of 54.3 months, rPFS and OS were 5.0 and 9.0 months, respectively. All the patients experienced treatment-related adverse events of any grades; however, no new safety signs were detected. Genomic biomarker analysis revealed that alterations in the TP53 pathway were associated with inferior rPFS and OS. Conclusion Ifosfamide and mesna showed appreciable efficacy and manageable safety profiles in heavily treated patients with mCRPC.

Background: and Purpose Criteria for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities in anti-amyloid therapy are based on T2* gradient-recalled echo (GRE), but susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) is widely used, creating uncertainty. This study quantitatively compared the detectability of SWI and GRE for cerebral microbleeds and established evidence supporting distinct microbleed criteria for each. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies directly comparing SWI and GRE up to August 8, 2024. Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. The pooled proportion of microbleed detection and detection ratio were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed based on magnetic field strength (1.5 T vs. 3 T) and SWI slice thickness (<2 mm vs. ≥2 mm), equipment vendor, and study quality. Results: Thirteen studies were included. SWI detected cerebral microbleeds approximately 1.6times more effectively than GRE. At 3.0 T and 1.5 T, SWI exhibited 1.7-fold and 1.5-fold greater detectability, respectively. SWI with thinner slices (<2 mm) showed a 1.9-fold improvement, while thicker slices (≥2 mm) showed a 1.3-fold improvement. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between vendors (0.61 vs. 0.60, p=0.89), or by study quality (0.61 vs. 0.59,p=0.89). Conclusions SWI detects cerebral microbleeds about 1.6 times more effectively than GRE, highlighting important differences between the two techniques. Cautious exploration of adjusted thresholds may be needed, and prospective validation in therapy-specific cohorts will be essential before clinical application.

Purpose: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with upfront FOLFIRINOX followed by local-regional therapy (LRT), surgical resection (SR), and radiotherapy (RT). We aimed to identify specific patient subgroups for which RT may serve as a reasonable alternative to SR for local tumor control. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 116 patients (SR group, n= 70; RT group, n= 46) at a single center between 2015 and 2020. Survival outcomes were compared based on LRT modalities, focusing on identifying subgroups in which RT provided an efficacy comparable to that of SR. Results: Among 116 patients, the SR group achieved a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (OS) than the RT group (27.1% vs. 8.7%, P< 0.0001), despite similar progression-free survival (P= 0.23). Significant prognostic factors for OS included carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) response in BRPC (P= 0.02) and radiologic partial response in LAPC (P= 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that, while SR provided a survival advantage in CA19-9 responders, no significant difference in OS was observed between SR and RT in CA19-9 non-responders (P= 0.37). Conclusion Although surgery remains the gold standard, RT may be considered a justifiable local alternative for CA19-9 non-responders and surgically ineligible patients with LAPC, yielding comparable outcomes in these specific, biologically unfavorable subgroups.

Primary cholangiocarcinoma is a rare bile duct epithelial neoplasm that can present with atypical clinical manifestations, complicating its diagnosis. A 62-year-old male showed symptoms suggestive of a complicated hepatic cyst that was later identified as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The patient presented with abdominal discomfort without fever. Imaging revealed a large cystic lesion in the liver. Despite the initial treatment for a presumed abscess, a biopsy confirmed cholangiocarcinoma. This case highlights the diagnostic challenge of distinguishing between benign complicated hepatic cysts and malignancies, particularly when typical markers of infection are absent. Early biopsy and vigilant assessments are crucial in such presentations to avoid a delayed diagnosis and initiate appropriate treatment.

Hepatic tuberculosis, typically associated with miliary tuberculosis, can occasionally present as localized liver lesions. This case report describes a 77-year-old male presenting with persistent abdominal pain and fever, following an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for bile duct sludge removal. Subsequent computed tomography revealed focal liver lesions. Despite initial treatment with antibiotics for a suspected inflammatory liver abscess, his condition did not improve. A liver biopsy was performed, revealing caseous granulomas, and the tuberculosis polymerase chain reaction result was positive. The patient was diagnosed with primary hepatic tuberculosis, which later disseminated. Oral anti-tuberculosis therapy was initiated and is currently being closely monitored. This case emphasizes the importance of considering hepatic tuberculosis in the differential diagnosis of liver lesions, particularly in cases involving cholestatic liver function tests, and persistent symptoms unresponsive to conventional antibiotics.

Purpose: The adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) Score (aGAPSS) was developed for assessing the probability of thrombotic events in APS patients. This study investigated whether the aGAPSS at diagnosis was associated with poor outcomes during follow-up in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). Materials and Methods: This study included 170 AAV patients who had the results of APS-related antibodies at diagnosis but were not diagnosed with APS. All-cause mortality, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), cerebrovascular accident, and acute coronary syndrome were considered poor AAV outcomes. The aGAPSS comprises five items, with 5, 4, 4, 3, and 1 points assigned to anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-β2-glycoprotein 1 antibodies, lupus anticoagulants, hyperlipidaemia, and arterial hypertension at AAV diagnosis, respectively. Results: The median age of the 170 patients [93 microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), 44 granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and 33 eosinophilic GPA (EGPA)] was 63.0 years. The optimal cut-off of the aGAPSS at diagnosis for ESKD during follow-up was set as two using the receiver operating characteristic curve. AAV patients with an aGAPSS ≥2 at diagnosis exhibited a significantly reduced ESKD-free survival rate compared to those with an aGAPSS <2 at diagnosis (p=0.045). Additionally, MPA and GPA patients, excluding EGPA patients for whom the median aGAPSS at diagnosis was close to 0, also showed similar patterns to the results among the 170 patients with AAV (p=0.021). Conclusion This study is the first to demonstrate that the aGAPSS at diagnosis was significantly associated with ESKD during follow-up in AAV patients without APS.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.