We present an autopsy case of a 19-year-old man with a history of epilepsy whose unwitnessed sudden death occurred unexpectedly in the night. About 4 years before death, he was diagnosed with unilateral optic neuritis (ON). Demyelinating disease was suspected, but he was lost to follow up after the recovery. Six months before death, he received a second dose of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. Three months before death, he experienced epileptic seizures for the first time. Seventeen days before death, he was infected with COVID-19, which showed self-limited course under home isolation. Several days before death, he complained of seizures again at night. Autopsy revealed multifocal gray-tan discoloration in the cerebrum. Histologically, the lesions consisted of active and inactive demyelinated plaques in the perivenous area of the white matter. Perivascular lymphocytic infiltration and microglial cell proliferation were observed in both white matter and cortex. The other major organs including heart and lung were unremarkable. Based on the antemortem history and postmortem findings, the cause of death was determined to be multiple sclerosis with suspected exacerbation. The direct or indirect involvement of cortex and deep gray matter by exacerbated multiple sclerosis may explain the occurrence of seizures. Considering the absence of other structural abnormalities except the inflammatory demyelination of the cerebrum, fatal arrhythmia or laryngospasm in the terminal epileptic seizure may explain his sudden unexpected death in the benign circumstances. In this case, the onset of seizure was preceded by COVID-19 vaccination, and the exacerbation of seizure was preceded by COVID-19 infection, respectively. Literature reporting first manifestation or relapse of multiple sclerosis temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination or infection are reviewed.

Given the progressive improvements in antithrombotic strategies, management of cardiovascular disease has become sophisticated/refined. However, the optimal perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. Assessments of the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks are essential to reduce the rates of mortality and major cardiac events. However, the existing guidelines do not mention these topics. This case-based consensus document deals with common clinical scenarios and offers evidence-based guidelines for individualized perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in the real world.

The prevalence of ischemic heart disease is steadily growing as populations age. Antithrombotic treatment is a key therapeutic modality for the prevention of secondary cerebro-cardiovascular disease. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention must be treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for a mandatory period. The optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimen remains debatable; antithrombotics can cause bleeding. Inadequate antithrombotic regimens are associated with perioperative ischemic events, but continuation of therapy may increase the risks of perioperative hemorrhagic complications (including mortality). Many guidelines on the perioperative management of antithrombotic agents have been established by academic societies. However, the existing guidelines do not cover all specialties, nor do they describe the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks associated with various surgical interventions. Moreover, few practical recommendations on the modification of antithrombotic regimens in patients who require non-deferrable interventions/surgeries or procedures associated with a high risk of hemorrhage have appeared. Therefore, cardiologists, specialists performing invasive procedures, surgeons, dentists, and anesthesiologists have not come to a consensus on optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimens. The Korean Platelet-Thrombosis Research Group presented a positioning paper on perioperative antithrombotic management. We here discuss commonly encountered clinical scenarios and engage in evidence-based discussion to assist individualized, perioperative antithrombotic management in clinical practice.

Purpose: We aimed to develop a prognostic model to assist palliative care referral at least 3 months before death in advanced cancer patients treated at an outpatient medical oncology clinic. Materials and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, a total of 200 patients were enrolled at a tertiary cancer center in South Korea. The major eligibility criterion was an expected survival of less than a year as estimated by their oncologists. We analyzed the influences of known prognostic factors along with chemotherapy status, mid-arm circumference, and triceps skinfold thickness on survival time. Results: The mean age of the patients was 64.5 years, 36% were female, and the median survival time was 7.6 months. In the multivariate analysis, we found 6 significant factors related to poor survival: a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (≥2), not undergoing chemotherapy, anorexia, a low lymphocyte level (<12%), a high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (≥300 IU/L), and a low mid-arm circumference (<23 cm). We developed a prognostic model (score, 0-8.0) to predict 3-month survival based on the multivariate analysis. Patients who scored ≥4.0 points had a short survival of less than 3 months (p<0.001). The discriminating ability of the prognostic model using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.88. Conclusion The prognostic model using ECOG performance status, chemotherapy status, anorexia, lymphocytes, LDH, and mid-arm circumference can predict 3-month survival in medical oncology outpatients. It can alert oncologists to refer patients to palliative care specialists before it is too late.

Purpose: Patients who have undergone gastrectomy have unique symptoms that are not appropriately assessed using currently available tools. This study developed and validated a symptom-focused quality of life (QoL) questionnaire for patients who have received gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods Based on a literature review, patient interviews, and expert consultation by the KOrean QUality of life in Stomach cancer patients Study group (KOQUSS), the initial item pool was developed. Two large-scale developmental studies were then sequentially conducted for exploratory factor analyses for content validity and item reduction. The final item pool was validated in a separate cohort of patients and assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and clinical validity. Results The initial questionnaire consisted of 46-items in 12 domains. Data from 465 patients at 11 institutions, followed by 499 patients at 13 institutions, were used to conduct item reduction and exploratory factor analyses. The final questionnaire (KOQUSS-40) comprised 40 items within 11 domains. Validation of KOQUSS-40 was conducted on 413 patients from 12 hospitals. KOQUSS-40 was found to have good model fit. The mean summary score of the KOQUSS-40 was correlated with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and STO22 (correlation coefficients, 0.821 and 0.778, respectively). The KOQUSS-40 score was also correlated with clinical factors, and had acceptable internal consistency (> 0.7). Test-retest reliability was greater than 0.8. Conclusion The KOQUSS-40 can be used to assess QoL of gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy and allows for a robust comparison of surgical techniques in clinical trials.

Purpose: Patients who have undergone gastrectomy have unique symptoms that are not appropriately assessed using currently available tools. This study developed and validated a symptom-focused quality of life (QoL) questionnaire for patients who have received gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods Based on a literature review, patient interviews, and expert consultation by the KOrean QUality of life in Stomach cancer patients Study group (KOQUSS), the initial item pool was developed. Two large-scale developmental studies were then sequentially conducted for exploratory factor analyses for content validity and item reduction. The final item pool was validated in a separate cohort of patients and assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and clinical validity. Results The initial questionnaire consisted of 46-items in 12 domains. Data from 465 patients at 11 institutions, followed by 499 patients at 13 institutions, were used to conduct item reduction and exploratory factor analyses. The final questionnaire (KOQUSS-40) comprised 40 items within 11 domains. Validation of KOQUSS-40 was conducted on 413 patients from 12 hospitals. KOQUSS-40 was found to have good model fit. The mean summary score of the KOQUSS-40 was correlated with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and STO22 (correlation coefficients, 0.821 and 0.778, respectively). The KOQUSS-40 score was also correlated with clinical factors, and had acceptable internal consistency (> 0.7). Test-retest reliability was greater than 0.8. Conclusion The KOQUSS-40 can be used to assess QoL of gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy and allows for a robust comparison of surgical techniques in clinical trials.

Background/Aims: Sorafenib is the first approved systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its clinical utility is limited, especially in Asian countries. Several reports have suggested the survival benefits of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) for advanced HCC with main portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). This study aimed to compare the efficacy of sorafenib-based therapy with that of HAIC-based therapy for advanced HCC with main PVTT. Methods: Advanced HCC patients with main PVTT treated with sorafenib or HAIC between 2008 and 2016 at Korea University Medical Center were included. We evaluated overall survival (OS), time-to-progression (TTP), and the disease control rate (DCR). Results: Seventy-three patients were treated with sorafenib (n=35) or HAIC (n=38). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups, except the presence of solid organ metastasis (46% vs 5.3%, p<0.001). The median OS time was not significantly different between the groups (6.4 months vs 10.0 months, p=0.139). TTP was longer in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (2.1 months vs 6.2 months, p=0.006). The DCR was also better in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (37% vs 76%, p=0.001). Subgroup analysis, which excluded patients with extrahepatic solid organ metastasis, showed the same trends for the median OS time (8.8 months vs 11.1 months, p=0.097), TTP (1.9 months vs 6.0 months, p<0.001), and DCR (53% vs 81%, p=0.030). Conclusions HAIC-based therapy may be an alternative to sorafenib for advanced HCC with main PVTT by providing longer TTP and a better DCR.

About 30~50% COVID-19 hospital inpatients is reported to have mild clinical presentation, and the clinical course is known to be good even in the older population. In order to compare the clinical symptoms of mild patients with COVID-19 infection by age, the clinical symptoms and laboratory results were analyzed by dividing mild patients admitted to a dedicated hospital into three groups: under the age of 64, 65-84, and above 85 years of age.There was no difference in gender ratio by age among 555 mild cases. Concomitant diseases with significant differences by age were hypertension, diabetes, stroke, and coronary artery disease.Among the symptoms, cough and sore throat were different by age, and cough was significantly higher in the group under 64 years of age. Among the symptoms, cough and sore throat were different by age, and cough was significantly higher in the group under 64 years of age.The white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil count, monocyte, blood sugar, procalcitonin, and creatinine were significantly higher in the 85 years old or older group, and the hemoglobin, albumin, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were significantly lower in the 85 years old or older group.

About 30~50% COVID-19 hospital inpatients is reported to have mild clinical presentation, and the clinical course is known to be good even in the older population. In order to compare the clinical symptoms of mild patients with COVID-19 infection by age, the clinical symptoms and laboratory results were analyzed by dividing mild patients admitted to a dedicated hospital into three groups: under the age of 64, 65-84, and above 85 years of age.There was no difference in gender ratio by age among 555 mild cases. Concomitant diseases with significant differences by age were hypertension, diabetes, stroke, and coronary artery disease.Among the symptoms, cough and sore throat were different by age, and cough was significantly higher in the group under 64 years of age. Among the symptoms, cough and sore throat were different by age, and cough was significantly higher in the group under 64 years of age.The white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil count, monocyte, blood sugar, procalcitonin, and creatinine were significantly higher in the 85 years old or older group, and the hemoglobin, albumin, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were significantly lower in the 85 years old or older group.