Vaccine-induced hypermetabolic lymph nodes have been clinically observed following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination. Specifically, the booster dose of the mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna, has been linked to a relatively high incidence of lymphadenopathy. We present the case of a kidney transplant recipient who developed an enlarged abdominal mass after receiving a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. This mass occupied the retroperitoneal space, infiltrated the psoas muscle, and resulted in ureteric compression and hydronephrosis. Percutaneous drainage and analysis of the perirenal fluid revealed the presence of lymphatic fluid. In summary, lymphadenopathy is a recognized adverse reaction to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Patients with compromised immune systems should be informed about the incidence and potential severity of lymphadenopathy following booster vaccination.

Vaccine-induced hypermetabolic lymph nodes have been clinically observed following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination. Specifically, the booster dose of the mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna, has been linked to a relatively high incidence of lymphadenopathy. We present the case of a kidney transplant recipient who developed an enlarged abdominal mass after receiving a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. This mass occupied the retroperitoneal space, infiltrated the psoas muscle, and resulted in ureteric compression and hydronephrosis. Percutaneous drainage and analysis of the perirenal fluid revealed the presence of lymphatic fluid. In summary, lymphadenopathy is a recognized adverse reaction to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Patients with compromised immune systems should be informed about the incidence and potential severity of lymphadenopathy following booster vaccination.

Vaccine-induced hypermetabolic lymph nodes have been clinically observed following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination. Specifically, the booster dose of the mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna, has been linked to a relatively high incidence of lymphadenopathy. We present the case of a kidney transplant recipient who developed an enlarged abdominal mass after receiving a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. This mass occupied the retroperitoneal space, infiltrated the psoas muscle, and resulted in ureteric compression and hydronephrosis. Percutaneous drainage and analysis of the perirenal fluid revealed the presence of lymphatic fluid. In summary, lymphadenopathy is a recognized adverse reaction to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Patients with compromised immune systems should be informed about the incidence and potential severity of lymphadenopathy following booster vaccination.

Vaccine-induced hypermetabolic lymph nodes have been clinically observed following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination. Specifically, the booster dose of the mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna, has been linked to a relatively high incidence of lymphadenopathy. We present the case of a kidney transplant recipient who developed an enlarged abdominal mass after receiving a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. This mass occupied the retroperitoneal space, infiltrated the psoas muscle, and resulted in ureteric compression and hydronephrosis. Percutaneous drainage and analysis of the perirenal fluid revealed the presence of lymphatic fluid. In summary, lymphadenopathy is a recognized adverse reaction to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Patients with compromised immune systems should be informed about the incidence and potential severity of lymphadenopathy following booster vaccination.

The study aimed to investigate the role of peripheral NLR family pyrin domain-containing 3 protein (NLRP3) in inflammatory pain development in the orofacial area. Male Sprague–Dawley rats were used in experiments, with orofacial formalin-induced pain behavior and complete Freund’s adjuvant (CFA)-induced thermal hyperalgesia as chronic inflammatory pain models. Administration of 5% formalin produced biphasic nociceptive behavior, and subcutaneous pretreatment with MCC950 (50 and 100 μg/50 μL), an NLRP3 inhibitor, remarkably attenuated nociceptive behavior during the second phase. Subcutaneous CFA injection induced thermal hyperalgesia 1 day after injection, which persisted for 7 days. Five days after CFA injection, subcutaneous treatment with MCC950 (50 and 100 μg/50 μL) significantly attenuated thermal hyperalgesia. Additionally, subcutaneous injection of BMS-986299 (50 and 100 μg/50 μL), an NLRP3 agonist, induced significant nociceptive behavior for 1 hour in naïve rats. Pretreatment with an interleukin-1β (IL-1β) receptor antagonist blocked the nociceptive behavior produced by subcutaneous injection of BMS-986299 (100 μg/50 μL);however, treatment with a hypoxia-inducible factor 1α inhibitor did not. These findings suggest the involvement of the peripheral NLRP3 and IL-1β pathway in chronic inflammatory pain development in the orofacial area, highlighting the potential of blocking this pathway as a strategy for developing future inflammatory pain treatment drugs.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

There are limited data on outcomes after implantation of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in East Asian patients with small vessel coronary lesions. A total of 1,600 patients treated with XIENCE EES (Abbott Vascular, CA, USA) were divided into the small vessel group treated with one ≤2.5 mm stent (n=119) and the non-small vessel group treated with one ≥2.75 mm stent (n=933). The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization at 12 months. The key secondary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO), a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel MI, and target lesion revascularization at 12 months. The small vessel group was more often female, hypertensive, less likely to present with ST-elevation MI, and more often treated for the left circumflex artery, whereas the non-small vessel group more often had type B2/C lesions, underwent intravascular ultrasound, and received unfractionated heparin. In the propensity matched cohort, the mean stent diameter was 2.5±0.0 mm and 3.1±0.4 mm in the small and non-small vessel groups, respectively. Propensity-adjusted POCO at 12 months was 6.0% in the small vessel group and 4.3% in the non-small vessel group (p=0.558). There was no significant difference in DOCO at 12 months (small vessel group: 4.3% and non-small vessel group: 1.7%, p=0.270).Outcomes of XIENCE EES for small vessel disease were comparable to those for non-small vessel disease at 12-month clinical follow-up in real-world Korean patients.

Objectives: . Facial nerve sacrifice during radical parotidectomy can impair quality of life. This study assessed the effectiveness of single-stage facial reanimation surgery performed concurrently with radical parotidectomy in restoring facial function. Methods: . A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent single-stage facial reanimation combined with radical parotidectomy. The techniques employed included selective reinnervation and orthodromic temporalis tendon transfer. Outcomes were evaluated using the modified House-Brackmann and Terzis grading systems, Emotrics facial assessment, and the Facial Disability Index (FDI). Results: . Among the 13 patients studied (median age, 54 years; 69% male), 10 underwent selective reinnervation. Of these, nine patients demonstrated improvement, achieving House-Brackmann grade III and Terzis grade 4 or 5. The other three patients underwent tendon transfer and achieved moderate functional outcomes. Emotrics analysis revealed balanced facial symmetry in the selective reinnervation group. Furthermore, FDI scores indicated satisfactory physical and social/well-being functions. Conclusion . Single-stage facial reanimation effectively restores facial function in patients undergoing radical parotidectomy. This approach offers meaningful benefits in the early recovery of facial function.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.