Background/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exhibits high de novo recurrence rates post-resection. Current post-surgery recurrence prediction methods are limited, emphasizing the need for reliable biomarkers to assess recurrence risk. We aimed to develop methylation-based markers for classifying HCC patients and predicting their risk of de novo recurrence post-surgery. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from HCC patients who underwent surgical resection in Korea, excluding those with recurrence within one year post-surgery. Using the Infinium Methylation EPIC array on 140 samples in the discovery cohort, we classified patients into low- and high-risk groups based on methylation profiles. Distinctive markers were identified through random forest analysis. These markers were validated in the cancer genome atlas (n=217), Validation cohort 1 (n=63) and experimental Validation using a methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) assay in Validation cohort 1 and Validation cohort 2 (n=63). Results: The low-risk recurrence group (methylation group 1; MG1) showed a methylation average of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.77) with a 23.5% recurrence rate, while the high-risk group (MG2) had an average of 0.17 (95% CI 0.14–0.20) with a 44.1% recurrence rate (P<0.03). Validation confirmed the applicability of methylation markers across diverse populations, showing high accuracy in predicting the probability of HCC recurrence risk (area under the curve 96.8%). The MS-HRM assay confirmed its effectiveness in predicting de novo recurrence with 95.5% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, and 92.2% accuracy. Conclusions Methylation markers effectively classified HCC patients by de novo recurrence risk, enhancing prediction accuracy and potentially offering personalized management strategies.

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) pediatric patients are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, but the viral kinetics and seroimmunologic response in pediatric IC patients are not fully understood. Methods: From April to June 2022, a prospective cohort study was conducted. IC pediatric patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were enrolled. Serial saliva swab and serum specimens were subjected to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays with mutation sequencing, viral culture, anti-spike-protein, anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays, plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and multiplex cytokine assays. Results: Eleven IC children were evaluated. Their COVID-19 symptoms resolved promptly (median, 2.5 days; interquartile range, 2.0–4.3). Saliva swab specimens contained lower viral loads than nasopharyngeal swabs (P = 0.008). All cases were BA.2 infection, and 45.5% tested negative within 14 days by saliva swab from symptom onset. Eight (72.7%) showed a time-dependent increase in BA.2 PRNT titers, followed by rapid waning. Multiplex cytokine assays revealed that monocyte/macrophage activation and Th 1 responses were comparable to those of non-IC adults. Activation of interleukin (IL)-1Ra and IL-6 was brief, and IL-17A was suppressed. Activated interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-18/IL-1F4 signals were observed. Conclusion IC pediatric patients rapidly recovered from COVID-19 with low viral loads.Antibody response was limited, but cytokine analysis suggested an enhanced IFN-γ- and IL-18-mediated immune response without excessive activation of inflammatory cascades. To validate our observation, immune cell-based functional studies need to be conducted among IC and non-IC children.

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: 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.

Background/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exhibits high de novo recurrence rates post-resection. Current post-surgery recurrence prediction methods are limited, emphasizing the need for reliable biomarkers to assess recurrence risk. We aimed to develop methylation-based markers for classifying HCC patients and predicting their risk of de novo recurrence post-surgery. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from HCC patients who underwent surgical resection in Korea, excluding those with recurrence within one year post-surgery. Using the Infinium Methylation EPIC array on 140 samples in the discovery cohort, we classified patients into low- and high-risk groups based on methylation profiles. Distinctive markers were identified through random forest analysis. These markers were validated in the cancer genome atlas (n=217), Validation cohort 1 (n=63) and experimental Validation using a methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) assay in Validation cohort 1 and Validation cohort 2 (n=63). Results: The low-risk recurrence group (methylation group 1; MG1) showed a methylation average of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.77) with a 23.5% recurrence rate, while the high-risk group (MG2) had an average of 0.17 (95% CI 0.14–0.20) with a 44.1% recurrence rate (P<0.03). Validation confirmed the applicability of methylation markers across diverse populations, showing high accuracy in predicting the probability of HCC recurrence risk (area under the curve 96.8%). The MS-HRM assay confirmed its effectiveness in predicting de novo recurrence with 95.5% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, and 92.2% accuracy. Conclusions Methylation markers effectively classified HCC patients by de novo recurrence risk, enhancing prediction accuracy and potentially offering personalized management strategies.

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: 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.

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) pediatric patients are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, but the viral kinetics and seroimmunologic response in pediatric IC patients are not fully understood. Methods: From April to June 2022, a prospective cohort study was conducted. IC pediatric patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were enrolled. Serial saliva swab and serum specimens were subjected to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays with mutation sequencing, viral culture, anti-spike-protein, anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays, plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and multiplex cytokine assays. Results: Eleven IC children were evaluated. Their COVID-19 symptoms resolved promptly (median, 2.5 days; interquartile range, 2.0–4.3). Saliva swab specimens contained lower viral loads than nasopharyngeal swabs (P = 0.008). All cases were BA.2 infection, and 45.5% tested negative within 14 days by saliva swab from symptom onset. Eight (72.7%) showed a time-dependent increase in BA.2 PRNT titers, followed by rapid waning. Multiplex cytokine assays revealed that monocyte/macrophage activation and Th 1 responses were comparable to those of non-IC adults. Activation of interleukin (IL)-1Ra and IL-6 was brief, and IL-17A was suppressed. Activated interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-18/IL-1F4 signals were observed. Conclusion IC pediatric patients rapidly recovered from COVID-19 with low viral loads.Antibody response was limited, but cytokine analysis suggested an enhanced IFN-γ- and IL-18-mediated immune response without excessive activation of inflammatory cascades. To validate our observation, immune cell-based functional studies need to be conducted among IC and non-IC children.

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) pediatric patients are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, but the viral kinetics and seroimmunologic response in pediatric IC patients are not fully understood. Methods: From April to June 2022, a prospective cohort study was conducted. IC pediatric patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were enrolled. Serial saliva swab and serum specimens were subjected to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays with mutation sequencing, viral culture, anti-spike-protein, anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays, plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and multiplex cytokine assays. Results: Eleven IC children were evaluated. Their COVID-19 symptoms resolved promptly (median, 2.5 days; interquartile range, 2.0–4.3). Saliva swab specimens contained lower viral loads than nasopharyngeal swabs (P = 0.008). All cases were BA.2 infection, and 45.5% tested negative within 14 days by saliva swab from symptom onset. Eight (72.7%) showed a time-dependent increase in BA.2 PRNT titers, followed by rapid waning. Multiplex cytokine assays revealed that monocyte/macrophage activation and Th 1 responses were comparable to those of non-IC adults. Activation of interleukin (IL)-1Ra and IL-6 was brief, and IL-17A was suppressed. Activated interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-18/IL-1F4 signals were observed. Conclusion IC pediatric patients rapidly recovered from COVID-19 with low viral loads.Antibody response was limited, but cytokine analysis suggested an enhanced IFN-γ- and IL-18-mediated immune response without excessive activation of inflammatory cascades. To validate our observation, immune cell-based functional studies need to be conducted among IC and non-IC children.

Background/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exhibits high de novo recurrence rates post-resection. Current post-surgery recurrence prediction methods are limited, emphasizing the need for reliable biomarkers to assess recurrence risk. We aimed to develop methylation-based markers for classifying HCC patients and predicting their risk of de novo recurrence post-surgery. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from HCC patients who underwent surgical resection in Korea, excluding those with recurrence within one year post-surgery. Using the Infinium Methylation EPIC array on 140 samples in the discovery cohort, we classified patients into low- and high-risk groups based on methylation profiles. Distinctive markers were identified through random forest analysis. These markers were validated in the cancer genome atlas (n=217), Validation cohort 1 (n=63) and experimental Validation using a methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) assay in Validation cohort 1 and Validation cohort 2 (n=63). Results: The low-risk recurrence group (methylation group 1; MG1) showed a methylation average of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.77) with a 23.5% recurrence rate, while the high-risk group (MG2) had an average of 0.17 (95% CI 0.14–0.20) with a 44.1% recurrence rate (P<0.03). Validation confirmed the applicability of methylation markers across diverse populations, showing high accuracy in predicting the probability of HCC recurrence risk (area under the curve 96.8%). The MS-HRM assay confirmed its effectiveness in predicting de novo recurrence with 95.5% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, and 92.2% accuracy. Conclusions Methylation markers effectively classified HCC patients by de novo recurrence risk, enhancing prediction accuracy and potentially offering personalized management strategies.