Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.

Objective: We aimed to revalidate the chemotherapy response score (CRS) system as a prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutations or those receiving frontline poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab as maintenance therapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery between January 2007 and December 2021 at 5 tertiary medical institutions in South Korea. At each hospital, pathologists independently assessed each slide of omental tissues obtained from surgery using the CRS system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the effect of BRCA mutation, maintenance therapy, and CRS on survival time. Results: Of 466 patients, BRCA mutations were detected in 156 (33.5%) and 131 (28.1%) were treated with maintenance therapy; 98 (21.0%) and 42 (9.0%) were treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab, respectively. Patients with CRS3 had significantly longer PFS than those with CRS1 or 2 (24.7 vs. 16.8 months, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS improvement between CRS3 patients and those with CRS1 or 2 with BRCA mutation (22.0 vs. 19.3 months, p=0.193). Moreover, no significant PFS prolongation was observed in CRS3 patients compared to CRS1 or 2 patients treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab (24.3 vs. 22.4 months, p=0.851; 27.5 vs. 15.7 months, p=0.347, respectively). Conclusion CRS may not be a prognostic factor in patients with BRCA mutations and those receiving frontline maintenance therapy.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.

Objective: We aimed to revalidate the chemotherapy response score (CRS) system as a prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutations or those receiving frontline poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab as maintenance therapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery between January 2007 and December 2021 at 5 tertiary medical institutions in South Korea. At each hospital, pathologists independently assessed each slide of omental tissues obtained from surgery using the CRS system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the effect of BRCA mutation, maintenance therapy, and CRS on survival time. Results: Of 466 patients, BRCA mutations were detected in 156 (33.5%) and 131 (28.1%) were treated with maintenance therapy; 98 (21.0%) and 42 (9.0%) were treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab, respectively. Patients with CRS3 had significantly longer PFS than those with CRS1 or 2 (24.7 vs. 16.8 months, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS improvement between CRS3 patients and those with CRS1 or 2 with BRCA mutation (22.0 vs. 19.3 months, p=0.193). Moreover, no significant PFS prolongation was observed in CRS3 patients compared to CRS1 or 2 patients treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab (24.3 vs. 22.4 months, p=0.851; 27.5 vs. 15.7 months, p=0.347, respectively). Conclusion CRS may not be a prognostic factor in patients with BRCA mutations and those receiving frontline maintenance therapy.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.

Objective: We aimed to revalidate the chemotherapy response score (CRS) system as a prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutations or those receiving frontline poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab as maintenance therapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery between January 2007 and December 2021 at 5 tertiary medical institutions in South Korea. At each hospital, pathologists independently assessed each slide of omental tissues obtained from surgery using the CRS system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the effect of BRCA mutation, maintenance therapy, and CRS on survival time. Results: Of 466 patients, BRCA mutations were detected in 156 (33.5%) and 131 (28.1%) were treated with maintenance therapy; 98 (21.0%) and 42 (9.0%) were treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab, respectively. Patients with CRS3 had significantly longer PFS than those with CRS1 or 2 (24.7 vs. 16.8 months, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS improvement between CRS3 patients and those with CRS1 or 2 with BRCA mutation (22.0 vs. 19.3 months, p=0.193). Moreover, no significant PFS prolongation was observed in CRS3 patients compared to CRS1 or 2 patients treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab (24.3 vs. 22.4 months, p=0.851; 27.5 vs. 15.7 months, p=0.347, respectively). Conclusion CRS may not be a prognostic factor in patients with BRCA mutations and those receiving frontline maintenance therapy.

In the 2022 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Ovarian cancer: long-term follow-up data, new poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, overall survival (OS) issues with PARP inhibitor monotherapy, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and antibody-drug conjugate; 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in early stage disease, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Corpus cancer: follow-up regimen, immune checkpoint inhibitor, WEE1 inhibitor, selective inhibitor of nuclear export. A special note was made on the withdrawal of PARP inhibitor from the market for heavily pretreated ovarian cancer patients based on the final OS results of ARIEL-4 and SOLO-3 due to concerns of increased risk of death.