Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Background/Aims: We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user’s experience and polyp characteristics. Methods: We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed. Results: The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively). Conclusions CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user’s experience, particularly for challenging lesions.

Purpose: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common hematologic malignancy worldwide. Although substantial improvement has been achieved by the frontline rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy, up to 40%-50% of patients will eventually have relapsed or refractory disease, whose prognosis is extremely dismal. Materials and Methods: We have carried out two prospective cohort studies that include over 1,500 DLBCL patients treated with rituximab plus CHOP (#NCT01202448 and #NCT02474550). In the current report, we describe the outcomes of refractory DLBCL patients. Patients were defined to have refractory DLBCL if they met one of the followings, not achieving at least partial response after 4 or more cycles of R-CHOP; not achieving at least partial response after 2 or more cycles of salvage therapy; progressive disease within 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation. Results: Among 1,581 patients, a total of 260 patients met the criteria for the refractory disease after a median time to progression of 9.1 months. The objective response rate of salvage treatment was 26.4%, and the complete response rate was 9.6%. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval, 6.4 to 8.6), and the 2-year survival rate was 22.1%±2.8%. The median OS for each refractory category was not significantly different (p=0.529). Conclusion In line with the previous studies, the outcomes of refractory DLBCL patients were extremely poor, which necessitates novel approaches for this population.

Purpose: Febrile neutropenia (FN) can cause suboptimal treatment and treatment-related mortality (TRM) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP). Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and we compared them with the PROCESS cohort (n=485). Results: Since January 2015, 986 patients with DLBCL were enrolled. Pegfilgrastim was administered at least once in 930 patients (94.3%), covering 90.3% of all cycles. FN developed in 137 patients (13.9%) in this cohort (23.7% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001), and 4.2% of all cycles (10.2% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001). Dose delay was less common (≥3 days: 18.1% vs. 23.7%, p=0.015; ≥5 days: 12.0% vs. 18.3%, p=0.023) in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The incidence of TRM (3.2% vs. 5.6%, p=0.047) and infection-related death (1.8% vs. 4.5%, p=0.004) was lower in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The 4-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of the two cohorts were not different (OS: 73.0% vs. 71.9%, p=0.545; PFS: 69.5% vs. 68.8%, p=0.616). However, in patients aged ≥75 years, the 4-year OS and PFS rates were higher in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort (OS: 49.6% vs. 33.7%, p=0.032; PFS: 44.2% vs. 30.3% p=0.047). Conclusion Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of FN and infection-related death in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and it also improves OS in patients aged ≥75 years.

Objective: To confirm the safety of Intra-articular (IA) injection on the ipsilateral adhesive capsulitis (AC) after breast cancer surgery. Methods: Between January 2017 and May 2020, we retrospectively studied 29 patients after breast cancer surgery who underwent IA injection in the glenohumeral joint for AC in aseptic procedure. Results: There were no side effects or complications such as lymphedema or cellulitis in the patients. There was a significant improvement in pain score and range of motion (ROM) at the 1st, 3rd, and 6th months visits compared to the baseline (p<0.05). The presence or absence of axillary lymph node dissection and radiation therapy had no significant difference in improvement of ROM. But, in rotator cuff syndrome (RCS) group, there was a significant difference in improvement of shoulder IR in patients without RCS. Conclusion IA Injection on the ipsilateral AC after breast cancer surgery was safe and even effective to improve pain and shoulder ROM. Ipsilateral IA injection can be a good treatment for breast cancer surgery patients suffering from AC.

Objective: This study analyzed the characteristics of people who attempted suicide that resulted in deaths as compared to that of the suicide survivors. Methods: This study included 799 suicide attempts that occurred from March 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019 at the emergency department of the university hospital in a city of around 300,000 people. Suicide attempts were classified into the survivor and death groups, and the characteristics of each group were compared. The suicide deaths due to re-attempts were also analyzed. Results: There were more males than females in the death groups. There was a high proportion of people aged 50 or older in the death groups. Hanging, carbon monoxide poisoning, and jumping from great heights were the most commonly used methods of suicide in the death groups. In the selected death group, psychiatric symptom, physical illness, and economic problem among the suicidal causes and depressive disorder among the psychiatric diagnoses were factors that increase the risk of suicide death. Sixty-three point four percent of the survival groups and 52.5% of the selected deaths had not received psychiatric care. On the analysis of suicide deaths due to re-attempts, the average number of suicide attempts was 2.45±0.9. The time from the first suicide attempt to the last suicide attempt was 13.8±10.4 months. Conclusion If it is necessary to make a treatment decision for a suicide attempt in a limited time, such as the case of treating a suicide attempter who visits an emergency department, it is necessary to consider the characteristic factors of the death attempts of suicidal people.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Visual assessment of medial temporal-lobe atrophy (MTA) has been quick, reliable, and easy to apply in routine clinical practice. However, one of the limitations in visual assessments of MTA is the lack of widely accepted age-adjusted norms and cutoff scores for MTA for a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This study aimed to determine the optimal cutoff score on a T1-weighted axial MTA Visual Rating Scale (VRS) for differentiating patients with AD from cognitively normal elderly people. METHODS: The 3,430 recruited subjects comprising 1,427 with no cognitive impairment (NC) and 2003 AD patients were divided into age ranges of 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, and 80–89 years. Of these, 446 participants (218 in the NC group and 228 in the AD group) were chosen by random sampling for inclusion in this study. Each decade age group included 57 individuals, with the exception of 47 subjects being included in the 80- to 89-year NC group. The scores on the T1-weighted axial MTA VRS were graded by two neurologists. The cutoff values were evaluated from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: The optimal axial MTA VRS cutoff score from discriminating AD from NC increased with age: it was ≥as ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 in subjects aged 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, and 80–89 years, respectively (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the optimal cutoff score on the axial MTA VRS for diagnosing of AD differed according to the decade age group. This information could be of practical usefulness in the clinical setting.
Aged ; Alzheimer Disease* ; Atrophy* ; Cognition Disorders ; Dementia* ; Diagnosis ; Humans ; Korea* ; Pemetrexed ; ROC Curve