1.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis and Non-Surgical Treatment of Primary Frozen Shoulder
Byung Chan LEE ; Gi-Wook KIM ; Keewon KIM ; Nackhwan KIM ; Dong Hwan KIM ; Doo Young KIM ; Du Hwan KIM ; Beom Suk KIM ; Seong Hun KIM ; In Jong KIM ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Yoonju NA ; Kyung Eun NAM ; Sung Gyu MOON ; Chang-Won MOON ; Kyunghoon MIN ; Donghwi PARK ; Myung Woo PARK ; Yong Bok PARK ; Jae Hyeon PARK ; Chul-Hyun PARK ; Hyeng-Kyu PARK ; Yunsoo SOH ; Jaeki AHN ; Seoyon YANG ; Kyeong Eun UHM ; Sun Jae WON ; Yu Hui WON ; Dong Hwan YUN ; Yu Sung YOON ; Jin A YOON ; Byeong-Ju LEE ; Woo Hyung LEE ; Yun Jung LEE ; Jae-Hyun LEE ; Jong Hwa LEE ; Yu Jin IM ; Jae-Young LIM ; Min Cheol CHANG ; Sung Joon CHUNG ; Il Young JUNG ; Sungju JEE ; Kyoung Hyo CHOI ; Jong-Moon HWANG ; Jae-Young HAN
Clinical Pain 2025;24(1):1-26
Objective:
Primary frozen shoulder causes significant pain and progressively restricts shoulder movements. Diagnosis is made clinically based on patient history and physical examination. Management is mainly non-invasive owing to its self-limiting clinical course. However, clinical practice guidelines for frozen shoulder have not yet been developed in Korea. The developed guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of frozen shoulder.
Methods:
A guideline development committee reviewed the literature from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KMbase). Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework, the committee formulated two backgrounds and 16 key questions to address common clinical concerns. Recommendations were made using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.
Results:
Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia significantly increase the risk of developing a frozen shoulder. Although frozen shoulder is often self-limiting, some patients may experience long-term functional disabilities. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging should be used as adjunctive tools alongside clinical diagnosis, and rather than as independent diagnostic methods. Noninvasive approaches, such as medications, physical modalities, exercises, electrical stimulation, and manual therapy, may reduce pain and improve shoulder function. Other noninvasive interventions have limited evidence, and their application should be based on clinical judgment. Intra-articular steroid injections are recommended for treatment, and physiotherapy or hydrodilation with steroid injections can also be beneficial.
Conclusion
These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary frozen shoulder.
2.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
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.
3.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
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.
4.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
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.
5.Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations by Korean Dementia Association
Kee Hyung PARK ; Geon Ha KIM ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; So Young MOON ; Young Ho PARK ; Sang Won SEO ; Bora YOON ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Byeong C. KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Hae Ri NA ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Chan-Nyoung LEE ; Hak Young RHEE ; San JUNG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Hojin CHOI ; Dong Won YANG ; Seong Hye CHOI
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):165-187
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.
6.Current Treatment Patterns and the Role of Upfront Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma: A Korean Nationwide, Multicenter Prospective Registry Study (CISL 1404)
Hyungwoo CHO ; Dok Hyun YOON ; Dong-Yeop SHIN ; Youngil KOH ; Sung-Soo YOON ; Seok Jin KIM ; Young Rok DO ; Gyeong-Won LEE ; Jae-Yong KWAK ; Yong PARK ; Min Kyoung KIM ; Hye Jin KANG ; Jun Ho YI ; Kwai Han YOO ; Won Sik LEE ; Byeong Bae PARK ; Jae Cheol JO ; Hyeon-Seok EOM ; Hyo Jung KIM ; Seong Hyun JEONG ; Young-Woong WON ; Byeong Seok SOHN ; Ji-Hyun KWON ; Cheolwon SUH ; Won Seog KIM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2023;55(2):684-692
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.
8.Outcomes in Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Results from Two Prospective Korean Cohorts
Jun Ho YI ; Seong Hyun JEONG ; Seok Jin KIM ; Dok Hyun YOON ; Hye Jin KANG ; Youngil KOH ; Jin Seok KIM ; Won-Sik LEE ; Deok-Hwan YANG ; Young Rok DO ; Min Kyoung KIM ; Kwai Han YOO ; Yoon Seok CHOI ; Whan Jung YUN ; Yong PARK ; Jae-Cheol JO ; Hyeon-Seok EOM ; Jae-Yong KWAK ; Ho-Jin SHIN ; Byeong Bae PARK ; Seong Yoon YI ; Ji-Hyun KWON ; Sung Yong OH ; Hyo Jung KIM ; Byeong Seok SOHN ; Jong Ho WON ; Dae-Sik HONG ; Ho-Sup LEE ; Gyeong-Won LEE ; Cheolwon SUH ; Won Seog KIM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2023;55(1):325-333
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.
9.A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Efficacy and Safety between Combination Therapy and Monotherapy in Elderly Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer (KCSG ST13-10)
Keun-Wook LEE ; Dae Young ZANG ; Min-Hee RYU ; Hye Sook HAN ; Ki Hyang KIM ; Mi-Jung KIM ; Sung Ae KOH ; Sung Sook LEE ; Dong-Hoe KOO ; Yoon Ho KO ; Byeong Seok SOHN ; Jin Won KIM ; Jin Hyun PARK ; Byung-Ho NAM ; In Sil CHOI
Cancer Research and Treatment 2023;55(4):1250-1260
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.
10.Re-Assessment of Applicability of Greulich and Pyle-Based Bone Age to Korean Children Using Manual and Deep Learning-Based Automated Method
Jisun HWANG ; Hee Mang YOON ; Jae-Yeon HWANG ; Pyeong Hwa KIM ; Boram BAK ; Byeong Uk BAE ; Jinkyeong SUNG ; Hwa Jung KIM ; Ah Young JUNG ; Young Ah CHO ; Jin Seong LEE
Yonsei Medical Journal 2022;63(7):683-691
Purpose:
To evaluate the applicability of Greulich-Pyle (GP) standards to bone age (BA) assessment in healthy Korean children using manual and deep learning-based methods.
Materials and Methods:
We collected 485 hand radiographs of healthy children aged 2–17 years (262 boys) between 2008 and 2017. Based on GP method, BA was assessed manually by two radiologists and automatically by two deep learning-based BA assessment (DLBAA), which estimated GP-assigned (original model) and optimal (modified model) BAs. Estimated BA was compared to chronological age (CA) using intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, linear regression, mean absolute error, and root mean square error. The proportion of children showing a difference >12 months between the estimated BA and CA was calculated.
Results:
CA and all estimated BA showed excellent agreement (ICC ≥0.978, p<0.001) and significant positive linear correlations (R2 ≥0.935, p<0.001). The estimated BA of all methods showed systematic bias and tended to be lower than CA in younger patients, and higher than CA in older patients (regression slopes ≤-0.11, p<0.001). The mean absolute error of radiologist 1, radiologist 2, original, and modified DLBAA models were 13.09, 13.12, 11.52, and 11.31 months, respectively. The difference between estimated BA and CA was >12 months in 44.3%, 44.5%, 39.2%, and 36.1% for radiologist 1, radiologist 2, original, and modified DLBAA models, respectively.
Conclusion
Contemporary healthy Korean children showed different rates of skeletal development than GP standard-BA, and systemic bias should be considered when determining children’s skeletal maturation.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail