Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Purpose: This study evaluated whether combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) as first-line chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Elderly (≥ 70 years) chemo-naïve patients with MRGC were allocated to receive either combination therapy (group A: 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/cisplatin, or S-1/cisplatin) or monotherapy (group B: 5-FU, capecitabine, or S-1). In group A, starting doses were 80% of standard doses, and they could be escalated to 100% at the discretion of the investigator. Primary endpoint was to confirm superior overall survival (OS) of combination therapy vs. monotherapy. Results: After 111 of the planned 238 patients were randomized, enrollment was terminated due to poor accrual. In the full-analysis population (group A [n=53] and group B [n=51]), median OS of combination therapy vs. monotherapy was 11.5 vs. 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.30; p=0.231). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 vs. 3.7 months (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83; p=0.005). In subgroup analyses, patients aged 70-74 years tended to have superior OS with combination therapy (15.9 vs. 7.2 months, p=0.056). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred more frequently in group A vs. group B. However, among severe TRAEs (≥ grade 3), there were no TRAEs with a frequency difference of > 5%. Conclusion Combination therapy was associated with numerically improved OS, although statistically insignificant, and a significant PFS benefit compared with monotherapy. Although combination therapy showed more frequent TRAEs, there was no difference in the frequency of severe TRAEs.

Purpose: We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, prospective registry study for newly diagnosed patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) to better define the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in these patients. Materials and Methods: Patients with PTCL receiving chemotherapy with curative intent were registered and prospectively monitored. All patients were pathologically diagnosed with PTCL. Results: A total of 191 patients with PTCL were enrolled in this prospective registry study. PTCL, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) was the most common pathologic subtype (n=80, 41.9%), followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) (n=60, 31.4%). With a median follow-up duration of 3.9 years, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 39.5% and 60.4%, respectively. The role of upfront ASCT was evaluated in patients who were considered transplant-eligible (n=59). ASCT was performed as an upfront consolidative treatment in 32 (54.2%) of these patients. There were no significant differences in PFS and OS between the ASCT and non-ASCT groups for all patients (n=59) and for patients with PTCL-NOS (n=26). However, in patients with AITL, the ASCT group was associated with significantly better PFS than the non-ASCT group, although there was no significant difference in OS. Conclusion The current study demonstrated that the survival outcomes with the current treatment options remain poor for patients with PTCL-NOS. Upfront ASCT may provide a survival benefit for patients with AITL, but not PTCL-NOS.

Purpose: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common hematologic malignancy worldwide. Although substantial improvement has been achieved by the frontline rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy, up to 40%-50% of patients will eventually have relapsed or refractory disease, whose prognosis is extremely dismal. Materials and Methods: We have carried out two prospective cohort studies that include over 1,500 DLBCL patients treated with rituximab plus CHOP (#NCT01202448 and #NCT02474550). In the current report, we describe the outcomes of refractory DLBCL patients. Patients were defined to have refractory DLBCL if they met one of the followings, not achieving at least partial response after 4 or more cycles of R-CHOP; not achieving at least partial response after 2 or more cycles of salvage therapy; progressive disease within 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation. Results: Among 1,581 patients, a total of 260 patients met the criteria for the refractory disease after a median time to progression of 9.1 months. The objective response rate of salvage treatment was 26.4%, and the complete response rate was 9.6%. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval, 6.4 to 8.6), and the 2-year survival rate was 22.1%±2.8%. The median OS for each refractory category was not significantly different (p=0.529). Conclusion In line with the previous studies, the outcomes of refractory DLBCL patients were extremely poor, which necessitates novel approaches for this population.

Purpose: Febrile neutropenia (FN) can cause suboptimal treatment and treatment-related mortality (TRM) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP). Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and we compared them with the PROCESS cohort (n=485). Results: Since January 2015, 986 patients with DLBCL were enrolled. Pegfilgrastim was administered at least once in 930 patients (94.3%), covering 90.3% of all cycles. FN developed in 137 patients (13.9%) in this cohort (23.7% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001), and 4.2% of all cycles (10.2% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001). Dose delay was less common (≥3 days: 18.1% vs. 23.7%, p=0.015; ≥5 days: 12.0% vs. 18.3%, p=0.023) in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The incidence of TRM (3.2% vs. 5.6%, p=0.047) and infection-related death (1.8% vs. 4.5%, p=0.004) was lower in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The 4-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of the two cohorts were not different (OS: 73.0% vs. 71.9%, p=0.545; PFS: 69.5% vs. 68.8%, p=0.616). However, in patients aged ≥75 years, the 4-year OS and PFS rates were higher in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort (OS: 49.6% vs. 33.7%, p=0.032; PFS: 44.2% vs. 30.3% p=0.047). Conclusion Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of FN and infection-related death in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and it also improves OS in patients aged ≥75 years.

Background and Objectives: Atherectomy as a pretreatment has the potential to improve the outcomes of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment by reducing and modifying atherosclerotic plaques. The present study investigated the outcomes of atherectomy plus DCB (A+DCB) compared with DCB alone for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease. Methods: A total of 311 patients (348 limbs) underwent endovascular therapy using DCB for native femoropopliteal artery lesions at two endovascular centers. Of these, 82 limbs were treated with A+DCB and 266 limbs with DCB alone. After propensity score matching based on clinical and lesion characteristics, a total of 82 pairs was compared for immediate and mid-term outcomes. Results: For the matched study groups, the lesion length was 172.7±111.2 mm, and severe calcification was observed in 43.3%. The technical success rate was higher in the A+DCB group than in the DCB group (80.5% vs. 62.2%, p=0.015). However, the A+DCB group showed more procedure-related minor complications (37.0% vs. 13.4%, p=0.047). At 2-year follow-up, primary clinical patency (73.8% vs. 82.6%, p=0.158) and the target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival (84.3% vs. 88.2%, p=0.261) did not differ between the two groups. In Cox proportional hazard analysis, atherectomy showed no significant impact on the outcome of DCB treatments. Conclusions The pretreatment with atherectomy improved technical success of DCB treatment; however, it was associated with increased minor complications. In this study, A+DCB showed no clinical benefit in terms of TLR-free survival or clinical patency compared with DCB treatment alone.