Purpose: Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, demanding precise genomic testing for individualized treatment strategies. Targeted-panel sequencing (TPS) has improved personalized oncology but often lacks comprehensive coverage of crucial cancer alterations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) addresses this gap, offering extensive genomic testing. This study demonstrates the medical potential of WGS. Materials and Methods: This study evaluates target-enhanced WGS (TE-WGS), a clinical-grade WGS method sequencing both cancer and matched normal tissues. Forty-nine patients with various solid cancer types underwent both TE-WGS and TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500), one of the mainstream TPS approaches. Results: TE-WGS detected all variants reported by TSO500 (100%, 498/498). A high correlation in variant allele fractions was observed between TE-WGS and TSO500 (r=0.978). Notably, 223 variants (44.8%) within the common set were discerned exclusively by TE-WGS in peripheral blood, suggesting their germline origin. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood using the TE-WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants. Further, TE-WGS provided accurate copy number profiles, fusion genes, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency scores, which were essential for clinical decision-making. Conclusion TE-WGS is a comprehensive approach in personalized oncology, matching TSO500’s key biomarker detection capabilities. It uniquely identifies germline variants and genomic instability markers, offering additional clinical actions. Its adaptability and cost-effectiveness underscore its clinical utility, making TE-WGS a valuable tool in personalized cancer treatment.

Purpose: Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, demanding precise genomic testing for individualized treatment strategies. Targeted-panel sequencing (TPS) has improved personalized oncology but often lacks comprehensive coverage of crucial cancer alterations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) addresses this gap, offering extensive genomic testing. This study demonstrates the medical potential of WGS. Materials and Methods: This study evaluates target-enhanced WGS (TE-WGS), a clinical-grade WGS method sequencing both cancer and matched normal tissues. Forty-nine patients with various solid cancer types underwent both TE-WGS and TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500), one of the mainstream TPS approaches. Results: TE-WGS detected all variants reported by TSO500 (100%, 498/498). A high correlation in variant allele fractions was observed between TE-WGS and TSO500 (r=0.978). Notably, 223 variants (44.8%) within the common set were discerned exclusively by TE-WGS in peripheral blood, suggesting their germline origin. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood using the TE-WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants. Further, TE-WGS provided accurate copy number profiles, fusion genes, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency scores, which were essential for clinical decision-making. Conclusion TE-WGS is a comprehensive approach in personalized oncology, matching TSO500’s key biomarker detection capabilities. It uniquely identifies germline variants and genomic instability markers, offering additional clinical actions. Its adaptability and cost-effectiveness underscore its clinical utility, making TE-WGS a valuable tool in personalized cancer treatment.

Purpose: Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, demanding precise genomic testing for individualized treatment strategies. Targeted-panel sequencing (TPS) has improved personalized oncology but often lacks comprehensive coverage of crucial cancer alterations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) addresses this gap, offering extensive genomic testing. This study demonstrates the medical potential of WGS. Materials and Methods: This study evaluates target-enhanced WGS (TE-WGS), a clinical-grade WGS method sequencing both cancer and matched normal tissues. Forty-nine patients with various solid cancer types underwent both TE-WGS and TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500), one of the mainstream TPS approaches. Results: TE-WGS detected all variants reported by TSO500 (100%, 498/498). A high correlation in variant allele fractions was observed between TE-WGS and TSO500 (r=0.978). Notably, 223 variants (44.8%) within the common set were discerned exclusively by TE-WGS in peripheral blood, suggesting their germline origin. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood using the TE-WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants. Further, TE-WGS provided accurate copy number profiles, fusion genes, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency scores, which were essential for clinical decision-making. Conclusion TE-WGS is a comprehensive approach in personalized oncology, matching TSO500’s key biomarker detection capabilities. It uniquely identifies germline variants and genomic instability markers, offering additional clinical actions. Its adaptability and cost-effectiveness underscore its clinical utility, making TE-WGS a valuable tool in personalized cancer treatment.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Accurate occupation classification is essential in various fields, including policy development and epidemiological studies. This study aims to develop an occupation classification model based on DistilKoBERT.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Accurate occupation classification is essential in various fields, including policy development and epidemiological studies. This study aims to develop an occupation classification model based on DistilKoBERT.

Accurate occupation classification is essential in various fields, including policy development and epidemiological studies. This study aims to develop an occupation classification model based on DistilKoBERT.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.