Background: Despite the growing necessity for government-led policy changes on clinical research ethics during pandemic, the scope of previous literature is limited to Korean government’s pandemic response strategies or reflections of research ethics at the level of institutions and academic societies. This paper examines the proactive policy changes and responses by the South Korean government in addressing the challenges and issues of research ethics against the backdrop of the urgency of rapid development and emergency supply of medical products during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We conducted searches of various government documents, using predetermined keywords related to research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only documents issued by governments or public institutions were included. A total of 24 documents were selected for analysis. They were divided into two phases: the first phase for urgent response (January 2020–February 2021) and the second phase (March 2021–February 2023) for long-term preparedness. Results: The Korean government recommended several measures of research governance to accelerate the ethical review of COVID-related research to be shortened less than one week:the joint operation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exempted or expedited review by a special review committee, guidelines for urgent reviews, and designation of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences as the supervising agency for the Clinical Trial Safety Support Institution as well as the Central IRB. It allowed temporary non-face-to-face methods for informed consent process (telephone explanations and a photo of the original signed consent) and clinical trials (telephone counselling and prescription, proxy prescription, and drug delivery and supply to clinical trial participants, and online ethics training). Conclusion As a result of South Korea’s commitment to ethical principles in their pandemic response, the medical system did not experience collapses due to the pandemic, and pandemic research was conducted with careful ethical considerations. The pandemic ethics immunization during the Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2015 laid the foundation for prompt government initiatives that ensured both pandemic research ethics and pandemic response ethics.

Breast cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in women worldwide. Early and precise diagnosis is crucial, and clinical outcomes can be markedly enhanced. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has ushered in a new era, notably in image analysis, paving the way for major advancements in breast cancer diagnosis and individualized treatment regimens. In the diagnostic workflow for patients with breast cancer, the role of AI encompasses screening, diagnosis, staging, biomarker evaluation, prognostication, and therapeutic response prediction. Although its potential is immense, its complete integration into clinical practice is challenging. Particularly, these challenges include the imperatives for extensive clinical validation, model generalizability, navigating the “black-box” conundrum, and pragmatic considerations of embedding AI into everyday clinical environments. In this review, we comprehensively explored the diverse applications of AI in breast cancer care, underlining its transformative promise and existing impediments. In radiology, we specifically address AI in mammography, tomosynthesis, risk prediction models, and supplementary imaging methods, including magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound. In pathology, our focus is on AI applications for pathologic diagnosis, evaluation of biomarkers, and predictions related to genetic alterations, treatment response, and prognosis in the context of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Our discussion underscores the transformative potential of AI in breast cancer management and emphasizes the importance of focused research to realize the full spectrum of benefits of AI in patient care.

Purpose: This single-arm phase II trial investigate the efficacy and safety of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes were enrolled. Patients received S-1 (40-60 mg depending on patient’s body surface area, twice a day, day 1-14) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, day 1) in 3 weeks cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1. Secondary endpoints included time-to-progression (TTP), duration-of-response (DoR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled from 11 institutions in Korea. Hormone receptor was positive in 54 (62.1%) patients and six (6.9%) had human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease. Forty-eight patients (85.1%) had visceral metastasis and 74 (55.2%) had more than three sites of metastases. The ORR of SOX regimen was 38.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.9 to 50.0) with a median TTP of 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 6.9). Median DoR and OS were 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 15.1) and 19.4 (95% CI, not estimated) months, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was reported in 28 patients (32.1%) and thrombocytopenia was observed in 23 patients (26.6%). Conclusion This phase II study showed that SOX regimen is a reasonable option in metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

Background: To precisely build a healthcare delivery system at regional levels, local patients’ healthcare service utilization patterns must be examined. Hence, this study utilized trend analysis of the relevance index of each disease of each essential medical service field at the municipal and provincial levels. Methods: This study analyzed customized databases released by the National Health Insurance Service from 2016–2020. Diseases defined in the Korean National Burden of Disease (KNBD) study were categorized into the following essential medical service fields:trauma care, cardiocerebrovascular, maternal and neonatal, mental health, infection, cancer, older adults’ care and rehabilitation, and others. Relevance index, the percentage of medical service utilization in a region by the residents of that region relative to their total medical service utilization, was examined by region (17 municipal and provincial regions) and disease area. The relevance index was determined based on the number of patients and the total outof-pocket expenses.Result: Eight of the 17 regions showed over a 90.0% relevance index in the infection area. In the cancer area, 14 regions (not including Seoul, Daegu, and Busan) had a relevance index lower than 75.0%. Throughout the analysis period (2016–2020), there were no significant variations in the relevance index. Diseases such as bone and connective tissue cancer (39.0%), neural tube defects (16.7%), and autism (57.1%) had low relevance index in the essential medical service fields. In all 17 regions, the relevance index of inpatients was lower than that of outpatients, and that for out-of-pocket expenses was lower than that based on the number of patients. Conclusion The relevance index of major diseases of each essential medical service field calculated in this study can provide good indicators for monitoring the level of an independent regional healthcare delivery system.