Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Objective: Spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical methods: unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability. Results: The ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001). Conclusion Compared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.

Purpose: Alectinib and brigatinib are second-generation anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinases (ALKs) that are widely used as first-line therapy for treating ALK-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Given the lack of a head-to-head comparison of these drugs as first-line therapies, this retrospective observational study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy and safety of alectinib and brigatinib. Materials and Methods: Patients who received alectinib or brigatinib as the first-line treatment for ALK-positive advanced NSCLC were evaluated for clinical outcomes of objective response rate (ORR), intracranial ORR, time to next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety profiles. Results: Of 208 patients who received either alectinib or brigatinib as a first-line treatment, 176 received alectinib and 32 received brigatinib. At the data cutoff point, the median follow-up duration was 16.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7 to 18.3) in the brigatinib group and 27.5 months (95% CI, 24.6 to 30.4) in the alectinib group. The ORR was 92.5% with alectinib and 93.8% for brigatinib. The intracranial ORR rates were 92.7% (38/41) and 100% (10/10), respectively. The rate of PFS at 12 months was comparable between the alectinib group and the brigatinib groups (84.4% vs. 84.1%, p=0.64), and the median TTNT, PFS, and OS were not reached in either group. Treatment-related adverse events were usually mild, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was rare (alectinib 4.5% vs. brigatinib 6.25%). Conclusion Alectinib and brigatinib had similar clinical benefits when used as the first-line treatment of NSCLC patients with ALK rearrangement in the real world.

Purpose: Optimal treatment for stage IIIA/N2 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC completely resected after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT). Materials and Methods: In this open-label, single-center, single-arm phase 2 trial, patients with stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC received adjuvant pembrolizumab for up to 2 years after complete resection following neoadjuvant CCRT. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. As an exploratory biomarker analysis, we evaluated the proliferative response of blood CD39+PD-1+CD8+ T cells using fold changes in the percentage of proliferating Ki-67+ cells from days 1 to 7 of cycle 1 (Ki-67D7/D1). Results: Between October 2017 and October 2018, 37 patients were enrolled. Twelve (32%) and three (8%) patients harbored EGFR and ALK alterations, respectively. Of 34 patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 assessment, 21 (62%), nine (26%), and four (12%) had a tumor proportion score of < 1%, 1%-50%, and ≥ 50%, respectively. The median follow-up was 71 months. The median DFS was 22.4 months in the overall population, with a 5-year DFS rate of 29%. The OS rate was 86% at 2 years and 76% at 5 years. Patients with tumor recurrence within 6 months had a significantly lower Ki-67D7/D1 among CD39+PD-1+CD8+ T cells than those without (p=0.036). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion Adjuvant pembrolizumab may offer durable disease control in a subset of stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC patients after neoadjuvant CCRT and surgery.