Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Background/Aims: Bile duct invasion (BDI) is rarely observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), leading to hyperbilirubinemia. However, the efficacy of pretreatment biliary drainage for HCC patients with BDI and obstructive jaundice is currently unclear. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the effect of biliary drainage on the prognosis of these patients. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled a total of 200 HCC patients with BDI from multicenter cohorts. Patients without obstructive jaundice (n=99) and those who did not undergo HCC treatment (n=37) were excluded from further analysis. Finally, 64 patients with obstructive jaundice (43 subjected to drainage and 21 not subjected to drainage) were included. Propensity score matching was then conducted. Results: The biliary drainage group showed longer overall survival (median 10.13 months vs 4.43 months, p=0.004) and progression-free survival durations (median 7.00 months vs 1.97 months, p<0.001) than the non-drainage group. Multivariate analysis showed that biliary drainage was a significantly favorable prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.42; p=0.006) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.30; p<0.001). Furthermore, in the evaluation of first response after HCC treatment, biliary drainage was beneficial (p=0.005). Remarkably, the durations of overall survival (p=0.032) and progression-free survival (p=0.004) were similar after propensity score matching. Conclusions Biliary drainage is an independent favorable prognostic factor for HCC patients with BDI and obstructive jaundice. Therefore, biliary drainage should be contemplated in the treatment of advanced HCC with BDI to improve survival outcomes.

Objectives: Sepsis is a leading global cause of mortality, and predicting its outcomes is vital for improving patient care. This study explored the capabilities of ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art natural language processing model, in predicting in-hospital mortality for sepsis patients. Methods: This study utilized data from the Korean Sepsis Alliance (KSA) database, collected between 2019 and 2021, focusing on adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients and aiming to determine whether ChatGPT could predict all-cause mortality after ICU admission at 7 and 30 days. Structured prompts enabled ChatGPT to engage in in-context learning, with the number of patient examples varying from zero to six. The predictive capabilities of ChatGPT-3.5-turbo and ChatGPT-4 were then compared against a gradient boosting model (GBM) using various performance metrics. Results: From the KSA database, 4,786 patients formed the 7-day mortality prediction dataset, of whom 718 died, and 4,025 patients formed the 30-day dataset, with 1,368 deaths. Age and clinical markers (e.g., Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and lactic acid levels) showed significant differences between survivors and non-survivors in both datasets. For 7-day mortality predictions, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.70–0.83 for GPT-4, 0.51–0.70 for GPT-3.5, and 0.79 for GBM. The AUROC for 30-day mortality was 0.51–0.59 for GPT-4, 0.47–0.57 for GPT-3.5, and 0.76 for GBM. Zero-shot predictions using GPT-4 for mortality from ICU admission to day 30 showed AUROCs from the mid-0.60s to 0.75 for GPT-4 and mainly from 0.47 to 0.63 for GPT-3.5. Conclusions GPT-4 demonstrated potential in predicting short-term in-hospital mortality, although its performance varied across different evaluation metrics.

Purpose: Advances in chemotherapeutic and targeted agents have increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST). Vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) has been suggested to accurately evaluate pCR. This study aims to confirm the non-inferiority of the 5-year disease-free survival of patients who omitted breast surgery when predicted to have a pCR based on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and VAB after NST, compared with patients with a pCR who had undergone breast surgery in previous studies. Methods The Omission of breast surgery for PredicTed pCR patients wIth MRI and vacuumassisted bIopsy in breaST cancer after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (OPTIMIST) trial is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, non-inferiority study enrolling in 17 tertiary care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Eligible patients must have a clip marker placed in the tumor and meet the MRI criteria suggesting complete clinical response (post-NST MRI size ≤ 1 cm and lesion-to-background signal enhancement ratio ≤ 1.6) after NST. Patients will undergo VAB, and breast surgery will be omitted for those with no residual tumor. Axillary surgery can also be omitted if the patient was clinically node-negative before and after NST and met the stringent criteria of MRI size ≤ 0.5 cm. Survival and efficacy outcomes are evaluated over five years.Discussion: This study seeks to establish evidence for the safe omission of breast surgery in exceptional responders to NST while minimizing patient burden. The trial will address concerns about potential undertreatment due to false-negative results and recurrence as well as improved patient-reported quality of life issues from the omission of surgery. Successful completion of this trial may reshape clinical practice for certain breast cancer subtypes and lead to a safe and less invasive approach for selected patients.