Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

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.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Objective: Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype is associated with risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the association ofAPOE ε4 allele with longitudinal medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) has been controversial. This study aims to evaluate the effect of APOE genotype on longitudinal MTA over a 2-year period in cognitively impaired patients with amyloid deposition. Methods: This retrospective longitudinal study included 65 cognitively impaired subjects with amyloid deposition (subjective memory impairment, mild cognitive impairment, and mild AD). Participants were divided into carriers (n=27) and non-carriers (n=38) of the ε4 allele. The main outcome is longitudinal reduction of medial temporal lobe (hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and parahippocampal gyrus) over 2 years. Analysis of covariance was conducted to compare the differences in longitudinal MTA between groups, controlling for covariates. Results: At baseline, hippocampal volume was 4.6% smaller (6.38±1.13 vs. 6.69±0.83, p=0.026) and entorhinal thickness was6.4% thinner (3.51±0.57 vs. 3.75±0.52, p=0.033) in APOE ε4 carriers than non-carriers. Furthermore, APOE ε4 carriers had significantly 72% greater longitudinal hippocampal atrophy compared to non-carriers (-0.43±0.30 vs. -0.25±0.31, p=0.041). Conclusion Our findings of baseline or longitudinal MTA in APOE ε4 carriers suggest that APOE ε4 genotype may contrib-ute to underlying pathophysiology of medial temporal lobe in AD.