Objective: This study aims to understand the structure of meaning in life among patients with cancer through the validation of the Meaning in Life Scale among Korean patients (K-MiLS) with cancer. Methods: From August 2021 to November 2022, participants were recruited from multiple sites in South Korea. Participants completed related questionnaires, including the MiLS, on the web or mobile. Test-retest reliability was assessed between 2 and 4 weeks after the initial assessment. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and Pearson’s correlations were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the MiLS. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the sociodemographic and disease-related variables correlated with the MiLS. Regarding concurrent validity, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed. Results: The results (n=345) indicated that the K-MiLS has a four-factor structure: Harmony and Peace; Life Perspective, Purpose, and Goals; Confusion and Lessened Meaning; and Benefits of Spirituality. Regarding convergent and discriminant validity, K-MiLS was negatively correlated with Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory while showing a significantly positive correlation with the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, Self-Compassion Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, and Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the demographic variable influencing MiLS was religious affiliation. Conclusion The K-MiLS had a multidimensional four-factor structure similar to that of the original version. It is also a reliable and valid measure for assessing cancer survivors’ meaning in life after a cancer diagnosis.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) are benign monoclonal liver tumors. Advances in molecular studies have led to the identification of distinct subtypes of HCA with unique pathways, clinical characteristics, and complication risks, underscoring the need for precise diagnosis and tailored management. Malignant transformation and bleeding remain significant concerns. Imaging plays a crucial role in the identification of these subtypes, offering a non-invasive method to guide clinical decision-making. Most studies involving patients with HCAs have been conducted in Western populations; however, the number of studies focused on Asian population has increased in recent years. HCAs exhibit distinct features in Asian population, such as a higher prevalence among male patients and specific subtypes (e.g., inflammatory HCAs). Current clinical guidelines are predominantly influenced by Western data, which may not fully capture these regional differences in epidemiology and subtype distribution. Therefore, this review presents the updated molecular classification of HCAs and their epidemiologic differences between Asian and Western populations, and discuss the role of imaging techniques, particularly magnetic resonance imaging using hepatobiliary contrast agents, in classifying the subtypes and predicting the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 for predicting mortality and liver-related complications compared with the Child-Pugh classification, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, the MELD, and the MELD sodium (MELDNa) score. Methods: We evaluated a multicenter retrospective cohort of incorporated patients with cirrhosis between 2013 and 2019. We conducted comparisons of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the MELD3.0 and other models for predicting 3-month mortality. Additionally, we assessed the risk of cirrhosis-related complications according to the MELD3.0 score. Results: A total of 3,314 patients were included. The mean age was 55.9±11.3 years, and 70.2% of the patients were male. Within the initial 3 months, 220 patients (6.6%) died, and the MELD3.0had the best predictive performance among the tested models, with an AUROC of 0.851, outperforming the Child-Pugh classification, ALBI grade, MELD, and MELDNa. A high MELD3.0score was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Compared with that of the group with a MELD3.0 score <10 points, the adjusted hazard ratio of the group with a score of 10–20 pointswas 2.176, and that for the group with a score of ≥20 points was 4.892. Each 1-point increase inthe MELD3.0 score increased the risk of cirrhosis-related complications by 1.033-fold. The risk of hepatorenal syndrome showed the highest increase, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.149, followed by hepatic encephalopathy and ascites. Conclusions The MELD3.0 demonstrated robust prognostic performance in predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Moreover, the MELD3.0 score was linked to cirrhosis-related complications, particularly those involving kidney function, such as hepatorenal syndrome and ascites.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

Objective: This study aims to understand the structure of meaning in life among patients with cancer through the validation of the Meaning in Life Scale among Korean patients (K-MiLS) with cancer. Methods: From August 2021 to November 2022, participants were recruited from multiple sites in South Korea. Participants completed related questionnaires, including the MiLS, on the web or mobile. Test-retest reliability was assessed between 2 and 4 weeks after the initial assessment. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and Pearson’s correlations were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the MiLS. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the sociodemographic and disease-related variables correlated with the MiLS. Regarding concurrent validity, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed. Results: The results (n=345) indicated that the K-MiLS has a four-factor structure: Harmony and Peace; Life Perspective, Purpose, and Goals; Confusion and Lessened Meaning; and Benefits of Spirituality. Regarding convergent and discriminant validity, K-MiLS was negatively correlated with Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory while showing a significantly positive correlation with the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, Self-Compassion Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, and Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the demographic variable influencing MiLS was religious affiliation. Conclusion The K-MiLS had a multidimensional four-factor structure similar to that of the original version. It is also a reliable and valid measure for assessing cancer survivors’ meaning in life after a cancer diagnosis.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: This study aims to understand the structure of meaning in life among patients with cancer through the validation of the Meaning in Life Scale among Korean patients (K-MiLS) with cancer. Methods: From August 2021 to November 2022, participants were recruited from multiple sites in South Korea. Participants completed related questionnaires, including the MiLS, on the web or mobile. Test-retest reliability was assessed between 2 and 4 weeks after the initial assessment. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and Pearson’s correlations were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the MiLS. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the sociodemographic and disease-related variables correlated with the MiLS. Regarding concurrent validity, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed. Results: The results (n=345) indicated that the K-MiLS has a four-factor structure: Harmony and Peace; Life Perspective, Purpose, and Goals; Confusion and Lessened Meaning; and Benefits of Spirituality. Regarding convergent and discriminant validity, K-MiLS was negatively correlated with Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory while showing a significantly positive correlation with the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, Self-Compassion Scale, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, and Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the demographic variable influencing MiLS was religious affiliation. Conclusion The K-MiLS had a multidimensional four-factor structure similar to that of the original version. It is also a reliable and valid measure for assessing cancer survivors’ meaning in life after a cancer diagnosis.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 for predicting mortality and liver-related complications compared with the Child-Pugh classification, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, the MELD, and the MELD sodium (MELDNa) score. Methods: We evaluated a multicenter retrospective cohort of incorporated patients with cirrhosis between 2013 and 2019. We conducted comparisons of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the MELD3.0 and other models for predicting 3-month mortality. Additionally, we assessed the risk of cirrhosis-related complications according to the MELD3.0 score. Results: A total of 3,314 patients were included. The mean age was 55.9±11.3 years, and 70.2% of the patients were male. Within the initial 3 months, 220 patients (6.6%) died, and the MELD3.0had the best predictive performance among the tested models, with an AUROC of 0.851, outperforming the Child-Pugh classification, ALBI grade, MELD, and MELDNa. A high MELD3.0score was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Compared with that of the group with a MELD3.0 score <10 points, the adjusted hazard ratio of the group with a score of 10–20 pointswas 2.176, and that for the group with a score of ≥20 points was 4.892. Each 1-point increase inthe MELD3.0 score increased the risk of cirrhosis-related complications by 1.033-fold. The risk of hepatorenal syndrome showed the highest increase, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.149, followed by hepatic encephalopathy and ascites. Conclusions The MELD3.0 demonstrated robust prognostic performance in predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Moreover, the MELD3.0 score was linked to cirrhosis-related complications, particularly those involving kidney function, such as hepatorenal syndrome and ascites.