Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Background: s/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in South Korea. This study evaluated the characteristics of Korean patients newly diagnosed with HCC in 2016-2018. Methods: Data from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry (KPLCR), a representative database of patients newly diagnosed with HCC in South Korea, were analyzed. This study investigated 4,462 patients with HCC registered in the KPLCR in 2016-2018. Results: The median patient age was 63 years (interquartile range, 55-72). 79.7% of patients were male. Hepatitis B infection was the most common underlying liver disease (54.5%). The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system classified patients as follows: stage 0 (14.9%), A (28.8%), B (7.5%), C (39.0%), and D (9.8%). The median overall survival was 3.72 years (95% confidence interval, 3.47-4.14), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates of 71.3%, 54.1%, and 44.3%, respectively. In 2016-2018, there was a significant shift toward BCLC stage 0-A and Child-Turcotte-Pugh liver function class A (P<0.05), although survival rates did not differ by diagnosis year. In the treatment group (n=4,389), the most common initial treatments were transarterial therapy (31.7%), surgical resection (24.9%), best supportive care (18.9%), and local ablation therapy (10.5%). Conclusions Between 2016 and 2018, HCC tended to be diagnosed at earlier stages, with better liver function in later years. However, since approximately half of the patients remained diagnosed at an advanced stage, more rigorous and optimized HCC screening strategies should be implemented.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Background: s/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in South Korea. This study evaluated the characteristics of Korean patients newly diagnosed with HCC in 2016-2018. Methods: Data from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry (KPLCR), a representative database of patients newly diagnosed with HCC in South Korea, were analyzed. This study investigated 4,462 patients with HCC registered in the KPLCR in 2016-2018. Results: The median patient age was 63 years (interquartile range, 55-72). 79.7% of patients were male. Hepatitis B infection was the most common underlying liver disease (54.5%). The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system classified patients as follows: stage 0 (14.9%), A (28.8%), B (7.5%), C (39.0%), and D (9.8%). The median overall survival was 3.72 years (95% confidence interval, 3.47-4.14), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates of 71.3%, 54.1%, and 44.3%, respectively. In 2016-2018, there was a significant shift toward BCLC stage 0-A and Child-Turcotte-Pugh liver function class A (P<0.05), although survival rates did not differ by diagnosis year. In the treatment group (n=4,389), the most common initial treatments were transarterial therapy (31.7%), surgical resection (24.9%), best supportive care (18.9%), and local ablation therapy (10.5%). Conclusions Between 2016 and 2018, HCC tended to be diagnosed at earlier stages, with better liver function in later years. However, since approximately half of the patients remained diagnosed at an advanced stage, more rigorous and optimized HCC screening strategies should be implemented.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Background: s/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in South Korea. This study evaluated the characteristics of Korean patients newly diagnosed with HCC in 2016-2018. Methods: Data from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry (KPLCR), a representative database of patients newly diagnosed with HCC in South Korea, were analyzed. This study investigated 4,462 patients with HCC registered in the KPLCR in 2016-2018. Results: The median patient age was 63 years (interquartile range, 55-72). 79.7% of patients were male. Hepatitis B infection was the most common underlying liver disease (54.5%). The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system classified patients as follows: stage 0 (14.9%), A (28.8%), B (7.5%), C (39.0%), and D (9.8%). The median overall survival was 3.72 years (95% confidence interval, 3.47-4.14), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates of 71.3%, 54.1%, and 44.3%, respectively. In 2016-2018, there was a significant shift toward BCLC stage 0-A and Child-Turcotte-Pugh liver function class A (P<0.05), although survival rates did not differ by diagnosis year. In the treatment group (n=4,389), the most common initial treatments were transarterial therapy (31.7%), surgical resection (24.9%), best supportive care (18.9%), and local ablation therapy (10.5%). Conclusions Between 2016 and 2018, HCC tended to be diagnosed at earlier stages, with better liver function in later years. However, since approximately half of the patients remained diagnosed at an advanced stage, more rigorous and optimized HCC screening strategies should be implemented.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.