Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Background: There are limited long-term clinical outcome data comparing first-generation (1G) versus second-generation (2G) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD). We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of 1G- and 2G-DES in SVD patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over 10 years of clinical follow-up. Methods: A total of 2,312 consecutive patients with SVD who underwent PCI with 1G-DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 811) or 2G-DES (zotarolimus [Endeavor, Endeavor Resolute]- or everolimus-eluting stents [Promus Element, Xience], n = 1,082) were enrolled.After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups (538 pairs) were generated. Study endpoints included individual and composite clinical outcomes through 10 years. Results: During the 10-year follow-up, the 2G-DES group had lower incidences of myocardial infarction (MI; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.92; P = 0.028) and target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P = 0.021) than the 1G-DES group. Rates of total death, cardiac death, non-target vessel revascularization, stroke, major adverse cardiac events, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups. Conclusions In our single-center, all-comer registry, 2G-DES were associated with lower incidence rates of MI and TLR compared to 1G-DES in SVD patients over 10 years of followup, indicating a safer and more durable effect than 1G-DES.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.