Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Purpose: The original eCura system was designed to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC).We assessed the effectiveness of a modified eCura system for reflecting the characteristics of undifferentiated-type (UD)-EGC. Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-four patients who underwent non-curative ER for UD-EGC and received either additional surgery (radical surgery group; n=270) or no further treatment (no additional treatment group; n=364) from 18 institutions between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. The eCuraU system assigned 1 point each for tumors >20 mm in size, ulceration, positive vertical margin, and submucosal invasion <500 µm; 2 points for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm; and 3 points for lymphovascular invasion. Results: LNM rates in the radical surgery group were 1.1%, 5.4%, and 13.3% for the low-(0–1 point), intermediate- (2–3 points), and high-risk (4–8 points), respectively (P-fortrend<0.001). The eCuraU system showed a significantly higher probability of identifying patients with LNM as high-risk than the eCura system (66.7% vs. 22.2%; McNemar P<0.001).In the no additional treatment group, overall survival (93.4%, 87.2%, and 67.6% at 5 years) and cancer-specific survival (99.6%, 98.9%, and 92.9% at 5 years) differed significantly among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (both P<0.001). In the high-risk category, surgery outperformed no treatment in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 3.26; P=0.015). Conclusions The eCuraU system stratified the risk of LNM in patients with UD-EGC after ER. It is strongly recommended that high-risk patients undergo additional surgery.

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 compare the short-term outcomes and safety profiles of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT)+abiraterone/prednisone with those of ADT+docetaxel in patients with de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Materials and Methods: A web-based database system was established to collect prospective cohort data for patients with mHSPC in Korea. From May 2019 to November 2022, 928 patients with mHSPC from 15 institutions were enrolled. Among these patients, data from 122 patients who received ADT+abiraterone/prednisone or ADT+docetaxel as the primary systemic treatment for mHSPC were collected. The patients were divided into two groups: ADT+abiraterone/prednisone group (n=102) and ADT+docetaxel group (n=20). We compared the demographic characteristics, medical histories, baseline cancer status, initial laboratory tests, metastatic burden, oncological outcomes for mHSPC, progression after mHSPC treatment, adverse effects, follow-up, and survival data between the two groups. Results: No significant differences in the demographic characteristics, medical histories, metastatic burden, and baseline cancer status were observed between the two groups. The ADT+abiraterone/prednisone group had a lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression rate (7.8% vs. 30.0%; p=0.011) and lower systemic treatment discontinuation rate (22.5% vs. 45.0%; p=0.037). No significant differences in adverse effects, oncological outcomes, and total follow-up period were observed between the two groups. Conclusions ADT+abiraterone/prednisone had lower PSA progression and systemic treatment discontinuation rates than ADT+docetaxel. In conclusion, further studies involving larger, double-blinded randomized trials with extended follow-up periods are necessary.

Background/Aims: The eCura system, a scoring model for stratifying the lymph node metastasis risk after noncurative endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer (EGC), has been internally validated, primarily for differentiated-type EGC. We aimed to externally validate this model for undifferentiated-type EGC. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 634 patients who underwent additional surgery (radical surgery group, n=270) or were followed up without additional treatment (no additional treatment group, n=364) after noncurative endoscopic resection for undifferentiated-type EGC between 2005 and 2015. The lymph node metastasis and survival rates were compared according to the risk categories. Results: For the radical surgery group, the lymph node metastasis rates were 2.6%, 10.9%, and 14.8% for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk eCura categories, respectively (p for trend=0.003). For the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories in the no additional treatment group, the overall survival (92.7%, 68.9%, and 80.0% at 5 years, respectively, p<0.001) and cancer-specific survival rates (99.7%, 94.7%, and 80.0% at 5 years, respectively, p<0.001) differed significantly. In the multivariate analysis, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) in the no additional treatment group relative to the radical surgery group were 3.18 (1.41 to 7.17; p=0.005) for overall mortality and 2.60 (0.46 to 14.66; p=0.280) for cancer-specific mortality in the intermediate-tohigh risk category. No such differences were noted in the low-risk category. Conclusions The eCura system can be applied to undifferentiated-type EGC. Close follow-up without additional treatment might be considered for low-risk patients, while additional surgery is recommended for intermediate- and high-risk patients.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker that could be of benefit to patients with gastric mucosal injury. The aim of this study was to assess the 2-week efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with acute or chronic gastritis. Methods: In this study, 327 patients with acute or chronic gastritis who had one or more gastric erosions on endoscopy and subjective symptoms were randomized into three groups receiving fexuprazan 20 mg once a day (q.d.), fexuprazan 10 mg twice a day (b.i.d.), or placebo for 2 weeks. The posttreatment assessments were the primary endpoint (erosion improvement rate), secondary endpoints (cure rates of erosion and edema and improvement rates of redness, hemorrhage, and subjective symptoms), and drug-related adverse events. Results: Among the patients, 57.8% (59/102), 65.7% (67/102), and 40.6% (39/96) showed erosion improvement 2 weeks after receiving fexuprazan 20 mg q.d., fexuprazan 10 mg b.i.d., and placebo, respectively. Both fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. showed superior efficacy to the placebo (p=0.017 and p<0.001, respectively). Likewise, both fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. also showed higher erosion healing rates than the placebo (p=0.033 and p=0.010, respectively). No difference was noted in the edema healing rate and the improvement rates for redness, hemorrhage, and subjective symptoms between the fexuprazan and placebo groups.No significant difference was noted in the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Conclusions Fexuprazan 20 mg q.d. and 10 mg b.i.d. for 2 weeks showed therapeutic efficacy superior to that of placebo in patients with acute or chronic gastritis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04341454).

Purpose: There have been few reports on comparison between sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy in Korean metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We sought to analyze the treatment trends of metastatic ccRCC by comparing the effects and adverse events of sunitinib and pazopanib. Materials and Methods: Data of 357 metastatic RCC patients who received the sunitinib or pazopanib as the first-line targeted therapy from the Daegyeong Oncology Study Group database was obtained and analyzed. Among these patients, patients who only clear cell type was confirmed after needle biopsy or nephrectomy were included, and patients who underwent target therapy for less than 3 months were excluded. Results: Of 251 patients who met the inclusion criteria, sunitinib and pazopanib group were identified in 156 (62%) and 95 patients (38%), respectively. Pazopanib group was older (66 years vs. 61 years, p=0.001) and more symptomatic (65% vs. 52%, p=0.037) and had more patients with Karnofsky performance status <80 (20% vs. 11%, p=0.048) and fewer number of organ metastases (p=0.004) compared to sunitinib group. There was no significant difference in disease control rate (88.5% vs. 87.3%, p=0.744), the median progression-free survival (19 months vs. 15 months, p=0.444) and overall survival (25 months vs. 19 months, p=0.721) between sunitinib and pazopanib. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events with sunitinib and pazopanib were anemia (5%) and hand-foot syndrome (3%), respectively. There was no significant difference between sunitinib and pazopanib in number of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events (15% vs. 11%, p=0.275). However, there were more patients who discontinued treatment due to only adverse events in sunitinib group compared to pazopanib group (12% vs. 3%, p=0.020). Conclusions In Korean metastatic ccRCC, pazopanib tended to be used in patients with poorer health status compared to sunitinib. Sunitinib and pazopanib had no significant difference in treatment effect and survival, but pazopanib had more tolerable adverse events.