Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Objective: In this study, changes in treatment methods and patient prognosis were analyzed using a Korean nationwide medical insurance information database. Methods: Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage who received surgical treatment for cerebral aneurysm from 2005 to 2020 were included. The specific surgery type was classified using the surgical code and according to whether stents were used. Yearly trends in mortality rates and poor prognosis, using tracheostomy as proxy, were analyzed by a simple regression analysis. A multistep logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk factors of mortality and poor prognosis. Results: Overall, 83,587 patients were included. Females were predominant (64.5%). Microsurgical clip usage rate decreased by approximately two-thirds from 78.8% in 2005 to 24.4% in 2020. Contrarily, endovascular treatment proportion gradually increased, and stent-assisted coil embolization rate surpassed microsurgical clip usage rate in 2020 (24.6% vs. 24.4%). In the multivariate analysis, endovascular treatment correlated positively with 3-month mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.19, P<0.0001), although correlated negatively with poor prognosis (tracheostomy) (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.98, P=0.0050). Conclusions According to the treatment trend analysis, during the 16 years studied, for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage due to ruptured cerebral aneurysm, the endovascular treatment rate increased rapidly and stent-assisted coil embolization rate surpassed that of microsurgical clip ligation. Diversification of treatment methods has led to a decrease in mortality and improved prognosis.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.