Purpose: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new bone lesions are sometimes not properly categorized through a confirmatory bone scan, and clinical significance of the test itself remains unclear. This study aimed to demonstrate the performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting and their prognostic impact in enzalutamide-treated mCRPC. Materials and Methods: Patients who received oral enzalutamide for mCRPC during 2014-2017 at 14 tertiary centers in Korea were included. Patients lacking imaging assessment data or insufficient drug exposure were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed. Results: Overall, 520 patients with mCRPC were enrolled (240 [26.2%] chemotherapy-naïve and 280 [53.2%] after chemotherapy). Among 352 responders, 92 patients (26.1%) showed new bone lesions in their early bone scan. Confirmatory bone scan was performed in 41 patients (44.6%), and it was associated with prolonged OS in the entire population (median, 30.9 vs. 19.7 months; p < 0.001), as well as in the chemotherapy-naïve (median, 47.2 vs. 20.5 months; p=0.011) and post-chemotherapy sub-groups (median, 25.5 vs. 18.0 months; p=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression showed that confirmatory bone scan performance was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.69; p=0.002). Conclusion Confirmatory bone scan performance was associated with prolonged OS. Thus, the premature discontinuation of enzalutamide without confirmatory bone scans should be discouraged.

Background: Inflammatory biomarkers, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), serve as valuable prognostic indicators in various cancers. This multicenter, retrospective cohort study assessed the treatment outcomes of lenvatinib in 71 patients with radioactive iodine (RAI)-refractory thyroid cancer, considering the baseline inflammatory biomarkers. Methods: This study retrospectively included patients from five tertiary hospitals in Korea whose complete blood counts were available before lenvatinib treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated based on the median value of inflammatory biomarkers. Results: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed among patients grouped according to the inflammatory biomarkers, except for older patients with a higher-than-median NLR (≥2) compared to their counterparts with a lower NLR (P= 0.01). Patients with a higher-than-median NLR had significantly shorter PFS (P=0.02) and OS (P=0.017) than those with a lower NLR. In multivariate analysis, a higher-than-median NLR was significantly associated with poor OS (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.24 to 7.29; P=0.015). However, neither the LMR nor the PLR was associated with PFS. A higher-than-median LMR (≥3.9) was significantly associated with prolonged OS compared to a lower LMR (P=0.036). In contrast, a higher-than-median PLR (≥142.1) was associated with shorter OS compared to a lower PLR (P=0.039). Conclusion Baseline inflammatory biomarkers can serve as predictive indicators of PFS and OS in patients with RAI-refractory thyroid cancer treated with lenvatinib.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Purpose: This study aimed to provide the clinical characteristics, prognostic factors, and 5-year relative survival rates of lung cancer diagnosed in 2015. Materials and Methods: The demographic risk factors of lung cancer were calculated using the KALC-R (Korean Association of Lung Cancer Registry) cohort in 2015, with survival follow-up until December 31, 2020. The 5-year relative survival rates were estimated using Ederer II methods, and the general population data used the death rate adjusted for sex and age published by the Korea Statistical Information Service from 2015 to 2020. Results: We enrolled 2,657 patients with lung cancer who were diagnosed in South Korea in 2015. Of all patients, 2,098 (79.0%) were diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 345 (13.0%) were diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), respectively. Old age, poor performance status, and advanced clinical stage were independent risk factors for both NSCLC and SCLC. In addition, the 5-year relative survival rate declined with advanced stage in both NSCLC (82%, 59%, 16%, 10% as the stage progressed) and SCLC (16%, 4% as the stage progressed). In patients with stage IV adenocarcinoma, the 5-year relative survival rate was higher in the presence of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation (19% vs. 11%) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation (38% vs. 11%). Conclusion In this Korean nationwide survey, the 5-year relative survival rates of NSCLC were 82% at stage I, 59% at stage II, 16% at stage III, and 10% at stage IV, and the 5-year relative survival rates of SCLC were 16% in cases with limited disease, and 4% in cases with extensive disease.

The introduction of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) in the beginning of 21st century has revolutionized the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the small intestine. In contrast to capsule endoscopy, the other main diagnostic modality of the small bowel diseases, DAE has the unique advantages of observing the region of interest in detail and enabling tissue acquisition and therapeutic intervention. As DAE becomes an essential procedure in daily clinical practice, there is an increasing need for correct guidelines on when and how to perform it and what technical factors should be considered. In response to these needs, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases developed an expert consensus statement on the performance of DAE by reviewing the current evidence. This expert consensus statement particularly focuses on the indications, choice of insertion route, therapeutic intervention, complications, and relevant technical points.

The introduction of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) in the beginning of the 21st century has revolutionized the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the small intestine. In contrast to capsule endoscopy, the other main diagnostic modality of small bowel diseases, DAE has the unique advantages of allowing the observation of the region of interest in detail and enabling tissue acquisition and therapeutic intervention. As DAE becomes an essential procedure in daily clinical practice, there is an increasing need for correct guidelines on when and how it is to be performed and what technical factors should be taken into consideration. In response to these needs, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases has developed an expert consensus statement on the performance of DAE by reviewing current evidence. This expert consensus statement particularly focuses on the indications, choice of insertion route, therapeutic intervention, complications, and relevant technical points.

Objective: This phase IV, multicenter, randomized controlled, open-label, and parallel clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and moderate intensity rosuvastatin combination therapy to that of high intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods: This study enrolled patients with ASCVD and after a four-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin and ezetimibe (RE 10/10 group) or high-intensity rosuvastatin (R20 group) only in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the difference in the percent change in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 12 weeks between two groups after treatment. Results: The study found that after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, the RE10/10 group had a greater reduction in LDL-C level compared to the R20 group (−22.9±2.6% vs. −15.6 ± 2.5% [p=0.041] and −24.2±2.5% vs. −12.9±2.4% [p=0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Moreover, a greater number of patients achieved the target LDL-C level of ≤70 mg/dL after the treatment period in the combination group (74.6% vs. 59.9% [p=0.012] and 76.2% vs. 50.8% [p<0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Importantly, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of overall adverse events and adverse drug reactions between two groups. Conclusion Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy had better efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels without increasing adverse effects in patients with ASCVD than high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.

Purpose: The safety of online contouring and planning for adaptive radiotherapy is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric difference of the organ-at-risk (OAR) according to the extent of contouring in stereotactic magnetic resonance image-guided adaptive RT (SMART) for pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the treatment plan data used for SMART in patients with pancreatic cancer. For the online contouring and planning, OARs within 2 cm from the planning target volume (PTV) in the craniocaudal direction were re-controlled daily at the attending physician's discretion. The entire OARs were re-contoured retrospectively for data analysis. We termed the two contouring methods the Rough OAR and the Full OAR, respectively. The proportion of dose constraint violation and other dosimetric parameters was analyzed. Results: Nineteen patients with 94 fractions of SMART were included in the analysis. The dose constraint was violated in 10.6% and 43.6% of the fractions in Rough OAR and Full OAR methods, respectively (p = 0.075). Patients with a large tumor, a short distance from gross tumor volume (GTV) to OAR, and a tumor in the body or tail were associated with more occult dose constraint violations—large tumor (p = 0.027), short distance from GTV to OAR (p = 0.061), tumor in body or tail (p = 0.054). No dose constraint violation occurred outside 2 cm from the PTV. Conclusion More occult dose constraint violations can be found by the Full OAR method in patients with pancreatic cancer with some clinical factors in the online re-planning for SMART. Re-contouring all the OARs would be helpful to detect occult dose constraint violations in SMART planning. Since the dosimetric profile of SMART cannot be represented by a single fraction, patient selection for the Full OAR method should be weighted between the clinical usefulness and the time and workforce required.

Background: We evaluated the achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) according to up-to-date Korean Diabetes Association (KDA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. Methods: This retrospective cohort study collected electronic medical record data from patients with T2DM (≥20 years) managed by endocrinologists from 15 hospitals in Korea (January to December 2019). Patients were categorized according to guidelines to assess LDL-C target achievement. KDA (2019): Very High-I (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD]) <70 mg/dL; Very High-II (target organ damage [TOD], or cardiovascular risk factors [CVRFs]) <70 mg/dL; high (others) <100 mg/dL. ESC/EAS (2019): Very High-I (ASCVD): <55 mg/dL; Very High-II (TOD or ≥3-CVRF) <55 mg/dL; high (diabetes ≥10 years without TOD plus any CVRF) <70 mg/dL; moderate (diabetes <10 years without CVRF) <100 mg/dL. ADA (2019): Very High-I (ASCVD); Very High-II (age ≥40+ TOD, or any CVRF), for high intensity statin or statin combined with ezetimibe. Results: Among 2,000 T2DM patients (mean age 62.6 years; male 55.9%; mean glycosylated hemoglobin 7.2%) ASCVD prevalence was 24.7%. Of 1,455 (72.8%) patients treated with statins, 73.9% received monotherapy. According to KDA guidelines, LDL-C target achievement rates were 55.2% in Very High-I and 34.9% in Very High-II patients. With ESC/EAS guidelines, target attainment rates were 26.6% in Very High-I, 15.7% in Very High-II, and 25.9% in high risk patients. Based on ADA guidelines, most patients (78.9%) were very-high risk; however, only 15.5% received high-intensity statin or combination therapy. Conclusion According to current dyslipidemia management guidelines, LDL-C goal achievement remains suboptimal in Korean patients with T2DM.