The objectives of fusion surgery for spinal deformities include decompressing neural elements and achieving balanced spinal alignment. Particularly, in cases where spinal deformities coexist with osteoporosis, successful surgery requires careful consideration due to the susceptibility to fixation failure and non-union. Various efforts are being made to restore spinal alignment through surgery in osteoporotic patients. The administration of osteoporosis medications before and after surgery is effective for bony union. Additionally, appropriate selection of fusion range, rigid internal fixation, and utilization of bone substitutes play significant roles in successful fusion surgery. Although surgical treatment for spinal deformities accompanied by osteoporosis remains still challenging, we can anticipate successful outcomes with effective strategies and ongoing advancements in the future.

Purpose: To assess the added value of radiomics models from preoperative chest CT in predicting the presence of spread through air spaces (STAS) in the early stage of surgically resected lung adenocarcinomas using multiple validation datasets. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 550 early-stage surgically resected lung adenocarcinomas in 521 patients, classified into training, test, internal validation, and temporal validation sets (n=211, 90, 91, and 158, respectively). Radiomics features were extracted from the segmented tumors on preoperative chest CT, and a radiomics score (Rad-score) was calculated to predict the presence of STAS. Diagnostic performance of the conventional model and the combined model, based on a combination of conventional and radiomics features, for the diagnosis of the presence of STAS were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: Rad-score was significantly higher in the STAS-positive group compared to the STAS-negative group in the training, test, internal, and temporal validation sets. The performance of the combined model was significantly higher than that of the conventional model in the training set {AUC: 0.784 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.722–0.846] vs. AUC: 0.815 (95% CI: 0.759–0.872), p=0.042}. In the temporal validation set, the combined model showed a significantly higher AUC than that of the conventional model (p=0.001). The combined model showed a higher AUC than the conventional model in the test and internal validation sets, albeit with no statistical significance. Conclusion A quantitative CT radiomics model can assist in the non-invasive prediction of the presence of STAS in the early stage of lung adenocarcinomas.

Objective: The Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) is a relatively specific test for bipolar disorders designed to assess the main functioning problems experienced by patients. This brief instrument includes 24 items assessing impairment or disability in 6 domains of functioning: autonomy, occupational functioning, cognitive functioning, financial issues, interpersonal relationships, and leisure time. It has already been translated into standardized versions in several languages. The aim of this study is to measure the validity and reliability of the Korean version of FAST (K-FAST). Methods: A total of 209 bipolar disorder patients were recruited from 14 centers in Korea. K-FAST, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument Brief Form (WHOQOL-BREF) were administered, and psychometric analysis of the K-FAST was conducted. Results: The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the K-FAST was 0.95. Test-retest reliability analysis showed a strong correlation between the two measures assessed at a 1-week interval (ICC = 0.97; p ＜ 0.001). The K-FAST exhibited significant correlations with GAF (r = −0.771), WHOQOL-BREF (r = −0.326), YMRS (r = 0.509) and BDRS (r = 0.598). A strong negative correlation with GAF pointed to a reasonable degree of concurrent validity. Although the exploratory factor analysis showed four factors, the confirmatory factor analysis of questionnaires had a good fit for a six factors model (CFI = 0.925; TLI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.078). Conclusion The K-FAST has good psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and can be applicable and acceptable to the Korean context.

The objective of this study was to compare recommendations of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022) with other recently published guidelines for treating bipolar disorder. We reviewed a total of six recently published global treatment guidelines and compared treatment recommendation of the KMAP-BP 2022 with those of other guidelines. For initial treatment of mania, there were no significant differences across treatment guidelines. All guidelines recommended mood stabilizer (MS) or atypical antipsychotic (AAP) monotherapy or a combination of an MS with an AAP as a first-line treatment strategy in a same degree for mania. However, the KMAP-BP 2022 recommended MS + AAP combination therapy for psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression as treatment of choice. Aripiprazole, quetiapine and olanzapine were the first-line AAPs for nearly all phases of bipolar disorder across guidelines. Some guideline suggested olanzapine is a second-line options during maintenance treatment, related to concern about long-term tolerability. Most guidelines advocated newer AAPs (asenapine, cariprazine, long-acting injectable risperidone, and aripiprazole once monthly) as first-line treatment options for all phases while lamotrigine was recommended for depressive and maintenance phases. Lithium and valproic acid were commonly used as MSs in all phases of bipolar disorder. KMAP-BP 2022 guidelines were similar to other guidelines, reflecting current changes in prescription patterns for bipolar disorder based on accumulated research data. Strong preference for combination therapy was characteristic of KMAP-BP 2022, predominantly in the treatment of psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression.

Objective: We revised the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP), first published in 2002 and revised in 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018, to reflect recent progress in the treatment of bipolar disorder. Methods: The questionnaires consisted of 56 items for adult patients and 7 items for child/adolescent patients, and were used to obtain the consensus of experts regarding pharmacological treatment strategies for various phases of bipolar disorder. The review committee included 87 Korean psychiatrists and 40 child and adolescent psychiatry experts. Results: For treatment of manic episodes, a combination of a mood stabilizer (MS) and atypical antipsychotics (AAP), or monotherapy with MS or AAP were recommended as first-line treatments. Combinations of MS and AAP, or AAP and lamotrigine (LMT) were recommended as first-line treatments for depressive episodes regardless of the severity. Monotherapy with MS, AAP, or LMT were also first-line treatments for mild to moderate depressive episodes. For mixed features, a combination of MS and AAP, or monotherapy with AAP or MS were recommended as first-line treatments, and a combination of AAP and LMT, or MS and LMT were the first-line treatments for depressive mixed state. Conclusion The recommendations of the KMAP-BP 2022 have changed from the previous version, to reflect the evolution of the social culture and healthcare system in Korea and recent evidence regarding pharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder. The KMAP-BP 2022 provides clinicians with a wealth of information regarding appropriate strategies to treat patients with bipolar disorder.

The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) first was published in 2002, and has been revised four times, in 2006, 2012, 2017, and 2021. In this review, we compared recommendations from the recently revised KMAP-DD 2021 to four global clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for depression published after 2010. The recommendations from the KMAP-DD 2021 were similar to those from other CPGs, although there were some differences. The KMAP-DD 2021 reflected social culture and the healthcare system in Korea and recent evidence about pharmacotherapy for depression, as did other recently published evidence-based guidelines. Despite some intrinsic limitations as an expert consensus-based guideline, the KMAP-DD 2021 can be helpful for Korean psychiatrists making decisions in clinical settings by complementing previously published evidence-based guidelines, especially for some clinical situations lacking evidence from rigorously designed clinical trials.

Purpose: The value of the genomic profiling by targeted gene-sequencing on radiation therapy response prediction was evaluated through integrated analysis including clinical information. Radiation response prediction model was constructed based on the analyzed findings. Materials and Methods: Patients who had the tumor sequenced using institutional cancer panel after informed consent and received radiotherapy for the measurable disease served as the target cohort. Patients with irradiated tumor locally controlled for more than 6 months after radiotherapy were defined as the durable local control (DLC) group, otherwise, non-durable local control (NDLC) group. Significant genomic factors and domain knowledge were used to develop the Bayesian Network model to predict radiotherapy response. Results: Altogether, 88 patients were collected for analysis. Of those, 41 (43.6%) and 47 (54.4%) patients were classified as the NDLC and DLC group, respectively. Somatic mutations of NOTCH2 and BCL were enriched in the NDLC group, whereas, mutations of CHEK2, MSH2, and NOTCH1 were more frequently found in the DLC group. Altered DNA repair pathway was associated with better local failure–free survival (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.86; p=0.014). Smoking somatic signature was found more frequently in the DLC group. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the Bayesian network model predicting probability of 6-month local control was 0.83. Conclusion Durable radiation response was associated with alterations of DNA repair pathway and smoking somatic signature. Bayesian network model could provide helpful insights for high precision radiotherapy. However, these findings should be verified in prospective cohort for further individualization.

Objectives: Treatment guidelines or an algorithm can help clinicians implement better practices and clinical decisions. Therefore, the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022) was revised again through a consensus of expert opinion. The diagnosis and treatment of mixed features are not simple, and there are many things to discuss. We describe the preferences and recommendations from KMAP-BP 2022 for the treatment of mood episodes with mixed features. Methods: We revised the KMAP-BP 2018 questionnaire and conducted the survey with expert clinicians. Out of ninety-three members of the review committee, eighty-seven completed the survey. We analyzed the answers, discussed the data, and held a clinician hearing. Results: In first-step strategies for mixed features with more manic symptoms, a combination of a mood stabilizer and an atypical antipsychotic is the treatment of choice. Mood stabilizer monotherapy and atypical antipsychotic monotherapy are preferred strategies. For mixed features with more depressive symptoms, a combination of mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic, a combination of atypical antipsychotic and lamotrigine (LMT), atypical antipsychotic monotherapy, a combination of mood stabilizer and LMT, and mood stabilizer monotherapy are preferred. For mixed features with similar manic symptoms and depressive symptoms, a combination of mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic, atypical antipsychotic monotherapy, and mood stabilizer monotherapy are preferred. Conclusion For mixed features, a combination of mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic is generally preferred, and LMT is preferred for depressive symptoms. Compared with KMAP-BP 2018, more diverse strategies and drugs are being attempted for the treatment of mixed features.

Objectives: After the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) was developed in 2002, its fifth revision was completed in 2022 to reflect the recent rapid developments and research into bipolar disorder and its psychopharmacology. Methods: According to the methodology for previous versions, the depressive episode section of KMAP-BP 2022 was revised based on a survey consisting of 11 questions. Among ninetythree experts, eighty-seven members of the review committee (93.5%) completed the survey.The executive committee analyzed the results and discussed the final production of an algorithm by considering the scientific evidence. Results: Overall, the results from this study showed little change in comparison with previous versions of KMAP-BP. However, there have been significant changes in recommendations over the span of about 20 years. The preferences for lamotrigine and atypical antipsychotics, especially aripiprazole, quetiapine, and olanzapine, have shown a tendency to continuously increase, but the preferences for risperidone and ziprasidone have not increased, but have decreased. Moreover, the preference for typical antipsychotics has significantly decreased. Additionally, concerns over the use of antidepressants in bipolar depression have been raised, and their use is not recommended in KMAP-BP 2022 as a first-line treatment. Conclusion Pharmacotherapy for acute depressive episodes with various clinical progressions and various subtypes still shows diversity, compared to pharmacotherapy for mania. We look forward to the development of bipolar depressive, episode-specific therapeutic drugs in the future, and hope the fifth update of KMAP-BP will be a complementary option for clinicians and their patients with bipolar disorder.

Objectives: The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) is a consensus-based medication guideline. To reflect advances in pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorders, we updated KMAP-BP to provide more timely information for clinicians. Methods: We conducted a survey using a questionnaire on treatments formanic/hypomanic episodes. Eighty-seven members among ninety-three members of the review committee (93.5%) completed the survey. Each treatment strategy or treatment option for manic/hypomanic episodes was evaluated with an overall score of 9, and the resulting 95% confidence interval treatment options were categorized into three recommendation levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary). The executive committee analyzed the results and discussed the final production of an algorithm by considering the scientific evidence. Results: The combination of a mood stabilizer and an atypical antipsychotic, monotherapy with a mood stabilizer, or monotherapy with an atypical antipsychotic were recommended as the firstline pharmacotherapeutic strategy for the initial treatment of mania without psychotic features. The mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic combination was the treatment of choice, and atypical antipsychotic monotherapy was the first-line treatment for mania with psychotic features. When initial treatment fails, a combination of mood stabilizer+atypical antipsychotic and switching to another first-line agent is recommended. For hypomania, monotherapy with either mood stabilizer or atypical antipsychotic is the recommended first-line treatment, but the mood stabilizer+atypical antipsychotic combination is recommended as well. Conclusion It is notable that there were changes in the preferences for the use of individual atypical antipsychotics, and the preference for the use of mood stabilizer increased for treatment-resistant mania.