Objective: To compare the quality of deep learning-reconstructed turbo spin-echo (DL-TSE) and conventionally interpolated turbo spin-echo (Conv-TSE) techniques in contrast-enhanced MRI of the neck. Materials and Methods: Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted DL-TSE and Conv-TSE images were acquired using 3T scanners from 106 patients. DL-TSE employed a closed-source, ‘work-in-progress’ (WIP No. 1062, iTSE, version 10; Siemens Healthineers) algorithm for interpolation and denoising to achieve the same in-plane resolution (axial: 0.26 x 0.26 mm 2 ; coronal: 0.29 x 0.29 mm 2 ) while reducing scan times by 15.9% and 52.6% for axial and coronal scans, respectively. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) and percent signal ghosting were measured using stationary and flow phantom scans, respectively. In patient images, non-uniformity (NU), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and regional mucosal FWHM were evaluated. Two neuroradiologists visually rated the patient images for overall quality, sharpness, regional mucosal conspicuity, artifacts, and lesions using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: FWHM in the stationary phantom scan was consistently sharper in DL-TSE. The percent signal ghosting outside the flow phantom was lower in DL-TSE (0.06% vs. 0.14%) but higher within the phantom (8.92% vs. 1.75%) compared to ConvTSE. In patient scans, DL-TSE showed non-inferior NU and higher CNR. Regional mucosal FWHM was significantly better in DL-TSE, particularly in the oropharynx (coronal: 1.08 ± 0.31 vs. 1.52 ± 0.46 mm) and hypopharynx (coronal: 1.26 ± 0.35 vs. 1.91 ± 0.56 mm) (both P < 0.001). DL-TSE demonstrated higher overall image quality (axial: 4.61 ± 0.49 vs. 3.32 ± 0.54) and sharpness (axial: 4.40 ± 0.56 vs. 3.11 ± 0.53) (both P < 0.001). In addition, mucosal conspicuity was improved, especially in the oropharynx (axial: 4.41 ± 0.67 vs. 3.40 ± 0.69) and hypopharynx (axial: 4.45 ± 0.58 vs. 3.58 ± 0.63) (both P < 0.001).Extracorporeal ghost artifacts were reduced in DL-TSE (axial: 4.32 ± 0.60 vs. 3.90 ± 0.71, P < 0.001) but artifacts overlapping anatomical structures were slightly more pronounced (axial: 3.78 ± 0.74 vs. 3.95 ± 0.72, P < 0.001). Lesions were detected with higher confidence in DL-TSE. Conclusion DL-based reconstruction applied to accelerated neck MRI improves overall image quality, sharpness, mucosal conspicuity in motion-prone regions, and lesion detection confidence. Despite more pronounced ghost artifacts overlapping anatomical structures, DL-TSE enables substantial scan time reduction while enhancing diagnostic performance.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Thrombosis and bleeding significantly affect morbidity and mortality in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in MPN patients remain uncertain. Materials and Methods: We conducted a large, retrospective, nationwide cohort study using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database from 2010 to 2021. Results: Out of the 368 MPN patients included in the final analysis, 62.8% were treated with DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF), and 37.2% for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The AF group was statistically older with higher CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category [female]) scores compared to the VTE group. Antiplatelet agents were used in 51.1% of cases, and cytoreductive drugs in 79.3%, with hydroxyurea being the most common (64.9%). The median follow-up was 22.3 months, with 1-year cumulative incidence rates of thrombosis and bleeding at 11.1% and 3.7%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥ 3 (hazard ratio [HR], 3.48), concomitant antiplatelet use (HR, 2.57), and cytoreduction (HR, 2.20) as significant thrombosis risk factors but found no significant predictors for major bleeding. Conclusion Despite the limitations of retrospective data, DOAC treatment in MPN patients seems effective and has an acceptable bleeding risk.

Purpose: Some studies suggest that TP53 mutations are associated with the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and also contribute to sex disparities in several cancers. Thus, we hypothesized that TP53 mutations might serve as sex-dependent genomic biomarkers of ICI treatment response in patients with NSCLC. Materials and Methods: Clinical data of 100 patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with ICI monotherapy at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUBH) were retrospectively reviewed. Genomic and clinical datasets of The Cancer Genome Atlas and an ICI-treated lung cancer cohort (cBioPortal) were also analyzed. Results: In SNUBH cohort, no statistically significant difference was observed in the median progression-free survival (PFS) according to TP53 mutation status (p=0.930); however, female patients with TP53 mutations (MT) had a significantly prolonged median PFS compared to wild-type (WT) (6.1 months in TP53 MT vs. 2.6 months in TP53 WT; p=0.021). Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) high (≥ 50%) expression was significantly enriched in female patients with TP53 MT (p=0.005). The analysis from publicly available dataset also revealed that females with NSCLC with TP53 MT showed significantly longer PFS than those with TP53 WT (p < 0.001). In The Cancer Genome Atlas analysis, expression of immune-related genes, and tumor mutation burden score in TP53 MT females were higher than in males without TP53 MT. Conclusion Female patients with NSCLC with TP53 mutations had high PD-L1 expression and showed favorable clinical outcomes following ICI therapy, suggesting a need for further research to explore the role of TP53 mutations for sex disparities in response to ICI therapy.

Objective: To compare the quality of deep learning-reconstructed turbo spin-echo (DL-TSE) and conventionally interpolated turbo spin-echo (Conv-TSE) techniques in contrast-enhanced MRI of the neck. Materials and Methods: Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted DL-TSE and Conv-TSE images were acquired using 3T scanners from 106 patients. DL-TSE employed a closed-source, ‘work-in-progress’ (WIP No. 1062, iTSE, version 10; Siemens Healthineers) algorithm for interpolation and denoising to achieve the same in-plane resolution (axial: 0.26 x 0.26 mm 2 ; coronal: 0.29 x 0.29 mm 2 ) while reducing scan times by 15.9% and 52.6% for axial and coronal scans, respectively. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) and percent signal ghosting were measured using stationary and flow phantom scans, respectively. In patient images, non-uniformity (NU), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and regional mucosal FWHM were evaluated. Two neuroradiologists visually rated the patient images for overall quality, sharpness, regional mucosal conspicuity, artifacts, and lesions using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: FWHM in the stationary phantom scan was consistently sharper in DL-TSE. The percent signal ghosting outside the flow phantom was lower in DL-TSE (0.06% vs. 0.14%) but higher within the phantom (8.92% vs. 1.75%) compared to ConvTSE. In patient scans, DL-TSE showed non-inferior NU and higher CNR. Regional mucosal FWHM was significantly better in DL-TSE, particularly in the oropharynx (coronal: 1.08 ± 0.31 vs. 1.52 ± 0.46 mm) and hypopharynx (coronal: 1.26 ± 0.35 vs. 1.91 ± 0.56 mm) (both P < 0.001). DL-TSE demonstrated higher overall image quality (axial: 4.61 ± 0.49 vs. 3.32 ± 0.54) and sharpness (axial: 4.40 ± 0.56 vs. 3.11 ± 0.53) (both P < 0.001). In addition, mucosal conspicuity was improved, especially in the oropharynx (axial: 4.41 ± 0.67 vs. 3.40 ± 0.69) and hypopharynx (axial: 4.45 ± 0.58 vs. 3.58 ± 0.63) (both P < 0.001).Extracorporeal ghost artifacts were reduced in DL-TSE (axial: 4.32 ± 0.60 vs. 3.90 ± 0.71, P < 0.001) but artifacts overlapping anatomical structures were slightly more pronounced (axial: 3.78 ± 0.74 vs. 3.95 ± 0.72, P < 0.001). Lesions were detected with higher confidence in DL-TSE. Conclusion DL-based reconstruction applied to accelerated neck MRI improves overall image quality, sharpness, mucosal conspicuity in motion-prone regions, and lesion detection confidence. Despite more pronounced ghost artifacts overlapping anatomical structures, DL-TSE enables substantial scan time reduction while enhancing diagnostic performance.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Objective: To compare the quality of deep learning-reconstructed turbo spin-echo (DL-TSE) and conventionally interpolated turbo spin-echo (Conv-TSE) techniques in contrast-enhanced MRI of the neck. Materials and Methods: Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted DL-TSE and Conv-TSE images were acquired using 3T scanners from 106 patients. DL-TSE employed a closed-source, ‘work-in-progress’ (WIP No. 1062, iTSE, version 10; Siemens Healthineers) algorithm for interpolation and denoising to achieve the same in-plane resolution (axial: 0.26 x 0.26 mm 2 ; coronal: 0.29 x 0.29 mm 2 ) while reducing scan times by 15.9% and 52.6% for axial and coronal scans, respectively. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) and percent signal ghosting were measured using stationary and flow phantom scans, respectively. In patient images, non-uniformity (NU), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and regional mucosal FWHM were evaluated. Two neuroradiologists visually rated the patient images for overall quality, sharpness, regional mucosal conspicuity, artifacts, and lesions using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: FWHM in the stationary phantom scan was consistently sharper in DL-TSE. The percent signal ghosting outside the flow phantom was lower in DL-TSE (0.06% vs. 0.14%) but higher within the phantom (8.92% vs. 1.75%) compared to ConvTSE. In patient scans, DL-TSE showed non-inferior NU and higher CNR. Regional mucosal FWHM was significantly better in DL-TSE, particularly in the oropharynx (coronal: 1.08 ± 0.31 vs. 1.52 ± 0.46 mm) and hypopharynx (coronal: 1.26 ± 0.35 vs. 1.91 ± 0.56 mm) (both P < 0.001). DL-TSE demonstrated higher overall image quality (axial: 4.61 ± 0.49 vs. 3.32 ± 0.54) and sharpness (axial: 4.40 ± 0.56 vs. 3.11 ± 0.53) (both P < 0.001). In addition, mucosal conspicuity was improved, especially in the oropharynx (axial: 4.41 ± 0.67 vs. 3.40 ± 0.69) and hypopharynx (axial: 4.45 ± 0.58 vs. 3.58 ± 0.63) (both P < 0.001).Extracorporeal ghost artifacts were reduced in DL-TSE (axial: 4.32 ± 0.60 vs. 3.90 ± 0.71, P < 0.001) but artifacts overlapping anatomical structures were slightly more pronounced (axial: 3.78 ± 0.74 vs. 3.95 ± 0.72, P < 0.001). Lesions were detected with higher confidence in DL-TSE. Conclusion DL-based reconstruction applied to accelerated neck MRI improves overall image quality, sharpness, mucosal conspicuity in motion-prone regions, and lesion detection confidence. Despite more pronounced ghost artifacts overlapping anatomical structures, DL-TSE enables substantial scan time reduction while enhancing diagnostic performance.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.