Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Purpose: This study evaluates the prognostic significance of tumor size at disease progression (PD) and depth of response (DOR) in cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We performed post hoc analysis using data from six prospective clinical trials conducted by the Korean Cancer Study Group. Patients with tumor size at PD was categorized into ‘Mild PD’ and ‘Significant PD’ based on the cutoff values of relative change from baseline using maximally selected rank statistics. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between PD and DOR categories. Results: Among the 194 evaluable patients, 130 experienced PD. A 35.48% decrease from baseline in tumor size at PD was chosen for the cutoff between mild and significant PD for OS (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ −35.48%; significant PD > −35.48%). The mild PD had superior OS compared to the significant PD (25.8 vs. 12.8 months; Hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.266-0.843, p=0.009). When using an exploratory cutoff based on whether the tumor size was below vs. exceeded from the baseline (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ 0%; significant PD > 0%), OS remained significantly longer in the mild PD (17.1 vs. 11.8 months; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.392-0.932, p=0.021). The greatest DOR was associated with the longest OS and PFS (p<0.001 for both). Conclusion Tumor size at PD and DOR were significant prognostic factors for progressive disease. Maintaining a sufficiently reduced tumor size even during PD was associated with better survival outcomes.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Purpose: This study evaluates the prognostic significance of tumor size at disease progression (PD) and depth of response (DOR) in cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We performed post hoc analysis using data from six prospective clinical trials conducted by the Korean Cancer Study Group. Patients with tumor size at PD was categorized into ‘Mild PD’ and ‘Significant PD’ based on the cutoff values of relative change from baseline using maximally selected rank statistics. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between PD and DOR categories. Results: Among the 194 evaluable patients, 130 experienced PD. A 35.48% decrease from baseline in tumor size at PD was chosen for the cutoff between mild and significant PD for OS (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ −35.48%; significant PD > −35.48%). The mild PD had superior OS compared to the significant PD (25.8 vs. 12.8 months; Hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.266-0.843, p=0.009). When using an exploratory cutoff based on whether the tumor size was below vs. exceeded from the baseline (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ 0%; significant PD > 0%), OS remained significantly longer in the mild PD (17.1 vs. 11.8 months; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.392-0.932, p=0.021). The greatest DOR was associated with the longest OS and PFS (p<0.001 for both). Conclusion Tumor size at PD and DOR were significant prognostic factors for progressive disease. Maintaining a sufficiently reduced tumor size even during PD was associated with better survival outcomes.

Purpose: This study evaluates the prognostic significance of tumor size at disease progression (PD) and depth of response (DOR) in cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We performed post hoc analysis using data from six prospective clinical trials conducted by the Korean Cancer Study Group. Patients with tumor size at PD was categorized into ‘Mild PD’ and ‘Significant PD’ based on the cutoff values of relative change from baseline using maximally selected rank statistics. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between PD and DOR categories. Results: Among the 194 evaluable patients, 130 experienced PD. A 35.48% decrease from baseline in tumor size at PD was chosen for the cutoff between mild and significant PD for OS (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ −35.48%; significant PD > −35.48%). The mild PD had superior OS compared to the significant PD (25.8 vs. 12.8 months; Hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.266-0.843, p=0.009). When using an exploratory cutoff based on whether the tumor size was below vs. exceeded from the baseline (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ 0%; significant PD > 0%), OS remained significantly longer in the mild PD (17.1 vs. 11.8 months; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.392-0.932, p=0.021). The greatest DOR was associated with the longest OS and PFS (p<0.001 for both). Conclusion Tumor size at PD and DOR were significant prognostic factors for progressive disease. Maintaining a sufficiently reduced tumor size even during PD was associated with better survival outcomes.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Periodontal disease (PD) is strongly linked to increased risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC); however, the specific mechanism through which the development of PD and OSCC is simultaneously promoted remains unclear.This study explored the impact of periodontal pathogens on OSCC progression and the contribution of periodontal pathogen-stimulated OSCC to PD development. The expression of osteoclastogenesis-inducing factors was assessed using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis following stimulation of OSCC with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) derived from the periodontal pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), a pathogen commonly responsible for PD. The cell counting kit-8 assay was used to determine the effects of Pg-LPS on OSCC proliferation and drug resistance to cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil. The effects of conditioned medium (CM) derived from Pg-LPS–stimulated OSCC on osteoclastogenesis was evaluated using tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining on bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs). Pg-LPS administration in SCC-25 and YD-8 OSCC cell lines induced a significant increase in receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand mRNA expression; however, it did not affect cell proliferation. Treatment with CM derived from Pg-LPS–stimulated SCC-25 or YD-8 cells markedly enhanced the formation of TRAP-positive multinucleated cells during osteoclast differentiation of BMMs. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that Pg-LPS–stimulated OSCC promoted osteoclastogenesis through a paracrine mechanism.

Background: Low compliance (LC) with lifestyle modification is a very common obstacle in obesity management. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effectiveness of obesity management according to compliance with a lifestyle-modification program. Methods: The “Change 10 Habits” program was administered four times over 12 weeks. Eighty-seven participants were divided into LC and high compliance (HC) groups for analysis after intervention. Then, to assess the program’s effectiveness based on compliance, we conducted t-tests and linear regression modeling. Results: In week 12, the scores of two dietary habits—specifically, “eat three meals regularly, adequate amount” and “do not eat after 9:00 PM”—were significantly higher in the HC group than in the LC group. Changes in leg and total body fat percentages were significantly improved in the HC group (−0.2%±0.3% vs. 0.9%±0.3%, P< 0.05; −0.1%±0.3% vs. 1.1%±0.5%, P<0.05, respectively). The body mass index was also significantly lower in the HC group than in the LC group (26.7±1.8 kg/m2 vs. 27.7±2.1 kg/m2 , P<0.05) at final follow-up. Finally, the systolic blood pressure, triglyceride, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values of the HC group also decreased significantly (from 117.9±12.2 to 114.3±15.0 mmHg, P<0.05; from 121.7±74.9 to 105.7±60.9 mg/dL, P<0.05; and from 24.3±15.0 to 21.1±12.2 mg/dL, P<0.05, respectively). Conclusion HC with the study program effectively improved the dietary habits, body fat composition, blood pressure, and lipid profile of adults with mild obesity.