1.Early Administration of Nelonemdaz May Improve the Stroke Outcomes in Patients With Acute Stroke
Jin Soo LEE ; Ji Sung LEE ; Seong Hwan AHN ; Hyun Goo KANG ; Tae-Jin SONG ; Dong-Ick SHIN ; Hee-Joon BAE ; Chang Hun KIM ; Sung Hyuk HEO ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Yeong Bae LEE ; Eung Gyu KIM ; Man Seok PARK ; Hee-Kwon PARK ; Jinkwon KIM ; Sungwook YU ; Heejung MO ; Sung Il SOHN ; Jee Hyun KWON ; Jae Guk KIM ; Young Seo KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Yang-Ha HWANG ; Keun Hwa JUNG ; Soo-Kyoung KIM ; Woo Keun SEO ; Jung Hwa SEO ; Joonsang YOO ; Jun Young CHANG ; Mooseok PARK ; Kyu Sun YUM ; Chun San AN ; Byoung Joo GWAG ; Dennis W. CHOI ; Ji Man HONG ; Sun U. KWON ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(2):279-283
2.Early Administration of Nelonemdaz May Improve the Stroke Outcomes in Patients With Acute Stroke
Jin Soo LEE ; Ji Sung LEE ; Seong Hwan AHN ; Hyun Goo KANG ; Tae-Jin SONG ; Dong-Ick SHIN ; Hee-Joon BAE ; Chang Hun KIM ; Sung Hyuk HEO ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Yeong Bae LEE ; Eung Gyu KIM ; Man Seok PARK ; Hee-Kwon PARK ; Jinkwon KIM ; Sungwook YU ; Heejung MO ; Sung Il SOHN ; Jee Hyun KWON ; Jae Guk KIM ; Young Seo KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Yang-Ha HWANG ; Keun Hwa JUNG ; Soo-Kyoung KIM ; Woo Keun SEO ; Jung Hwa SEO ; Joonsang YOO ; Jun Young CHANG ; Mooseok PARK ; Kyu Sun YUM ; Chun San AN ; Byoung Joo GWAG ; Dennis W. CHOI ; Ji Man HONG ; Sun U. KWON ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(2):279-283
3.Early Administration of Nelonemdaz May Improve the Stroke Outcomes in Patients With Acute Stroke
Jin Soo LEE ; Ji Sung LEE ; Seong Hwan AHN ; Hyun Goo KANG ; Tae-Jin SONG ; Dong-Ick SHIN ; Hee-Joon BAE ; Chang Hun KIM ; Sung Hyuk HEO ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Yeong Bae LEE ; Eung Gyu KIM ; Man Seok PARK ; Hee-Kwon PARK ; Jinkwon KIM ; Sungwook YU ; Heejung MO ; Sung Il SOHN ; Jee Hyun KWON ; Jae Guk KIM ; Young Seo KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Yang-Ha HWANG ; Keun Hwa JUNG ; Soo-Kyoung KIM ; Woo Keun SEO ; Jung Hwa SEO ; Joonsang YOO ; Jun Young CHANG ; Mooseok PARK ; Kyu Sun YUM ; Chun San AN ; Byoung Joo GWAG ; Dennis W. CHOI ; Ji Man HONG ; Sun U. KWON ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(2):279-283
4.Suppression of Glioblastoma Stem Cell Potency and Tumor Growth via LRRK2 Inhibition
Saewhan PARK ; Kyung-Hee KIM ; Yun-Hee BAE ; Young Taek OH ; Hyemi SHIN ; Hyung Joon KWON ; Chan Il KIM ; Sung Soo KIM ; Hwan-Geun CHOI ; Jong Bae PARK ; Byoung Dae LEE
International Journal of Stem Cells 2024;17(3):319-329
Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2), a large GTP-regulated serine/threonine kinase, is well-known for its mutations causing late-onset Parkinson’s disease. However, the role of LRRK2 in glioblastoma (GBM) carcinogenesis has not yet been fully elucidated. Here, we discovered that LRRK2 was overexpressed in 40% of GBM patients, according to tissue microarray analysis, and high LRRK2 expression correlated with poor prognosis in GBM patients. LRRK2 and stemness factors were highly expressed in various patient-derived GBM stem cells, which are responsible for GBM initiation. Canonical serum-induced differentiation decreased the expression of both LRRK2 and stemness factors.Given that LRRK2 is a key regulator of glioma stem cell (GSC) stemness, we developed DNK72, a novel LRRK2 kinase inhibitor that penetrates the blood-brain barrier. DNK72 binds to the phosphorylation sites of active LRRK2 and dramatically reduced cell proliferation and stemness factors expression in in vitro studies. Orthotopic patient-derived xenograft mouse models demonstrated that LRRK2 inhibition with DNK72 effectively reduced tumor growth and increased survival time. We propose that LRRK2 plays a significant role in regulating the stemness of GSCs and that suppression of LRRK2 kinase activity leads to reduced GBM malignancy and proliferation. In the near future, targeting LRRK2 in patients with high LRRK2-expressing GBM could offer a superior therapeutic strategy and potentially replace current clinical treatment methods.
5.Guideline for Minimizing Radiation Exposure of Interventionalists during Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures
Il Sang SHIN ; Yun Nah LEE ; Jun Kyu LEE ; Joo Seong KIM ; Sung Bum KIM ; Jiyoung KEUM ; Chang Hoon OH ; Kang Won LEE ; Joowon CHUNG ; Lyo Min KWON ; Nam Hee KIM ; Sang Soo LEE ; Byoung Kwan SON ; Miyoung CHOI
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 2024;84(6):251-264
As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.
7.Clinical Trial Protocol for Porcine Islet Xenotransplantation in South Korea
Byung-Joon KIM ; Jun-Seop SHIN ; Byoung-Hoon MIN ; Jong-Min KIM ; Chung-Gyu PARK ; Hee-Jung KANG ; Eung Soo HWANG ; Won-Woo LEE ; Jung-Sik KIM ; Hyun Je KIM ; Iov KWON ; Jae Sung KIM ; Geun Soo KIM ; Joonho MOON ; Du Yeon SHIN ; Bumrae CHO ; Heung-Mo YANG ; Sung Joo KIM ; Kwang-Won KIM
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2024;48(6):1160-1168
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.
8.Guideline for Minimizing Radiation Exposure of Interventionalists during Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures
Il Sang SHIN ; Yun Nah LEE ; Jun Kyu LEE ; Joo Seong KIM ; Sung Bum KIM ; Jiyoung KEUM ; Chang Hoon OH ; Kang Won LEE ; Joowon CHUNG ; Lyo Min KWON ; Nam Hee KIM ; Sang Soo LEE ; Byoung Kwan SON ; Miyoung CHOI
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 2024;84(6):251-264
As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.
9.Risk Factors for Distant Metastasis in Extrahepatic Bile Duct Cancer after Curative Resection (KROG 1814)
Younghee PARK ; Tae Hyun KIM ; Kyubo KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Wonguen JUNG ; Jinsil SEONG ; Woo Chul KIM ; Jin Hwa CHOI ; Ah Ram CHANG ; Bae Kwon JEONG ; Byoung Hyuck KIM ; Tae Gyu KIM ; Jin Hee KIM ; Hae Jin PARK ; Hyun Soo SHIN ; Jung Ho IM ; Eui Kyu CHIE
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(1):272-279
Purpose:
Risk factors predicting distant metastasis (DM) in extrahepatic bile duct cancer (EHBDC) patients treated with curative resection were investigated.
Materials and Methods:
Medical records of 1,418 EHBDC patients undergoing curative resection between Jan 2000 and Dec 2015 from 14 institutions were reviewed. After resection, 924 patients (67.6%) were surveilled without adjuvant therapy, 297 (21.7%) were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and 148 (10.8%) with CCRT followed by chemotherapy. To exclude the treatment effect from innate confounders, patients not treated with adjuvant therapy were evaluated.
Results:
After a median follow-up of 36.7 months (range, 2.7 to 213.2 months), the 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rate was 57.7%. On multivariate analysis, perihilar or diffuse tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 1.391; p=0.004), poorly differentiated histology (HR, 2.014; p < 0.001), presence of perineural invasion (HR, 1.768; p < 0.001), positive nodal metastasis (HR, 2.670; p < 0.001) and preoperative carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 ≥ 37 U/mL (HR, 1.353; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with inferior DMFS. The DMFS rates significantly differed according to the number of these risk factors. For validation, patients who underwent adjuvant therapy were evaluated. In patients with ≥ 3 factors, additional chemotherapy after CCRT resulted in a superior DMFS compared with CCRT alone (5-year rate, 47.6% vs. 27.7%; p=0.001), but the benefit of additional chemotherapy was not observed in patients with 0-2 risk factors.
Conclusion
Tumor location, histologic differentiation, perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis, and preoperative CA 19-9 level predicted DM risk in resected EHBDC. These risk factors might help identifying a subset of patients who could benefit from additional chemotherapy after resection.
10.Lazertinib versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment for EGFR-mutated Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: LASER301 Korean Subset
Ki Hyeong LEE ; Byoung Chul CHO ; Myung-Ju AHN ; Yun-Gyoo LEE ; Youngjoo LEE ; Jong-Seok LEE ; Joo-Hang KIM ; Young Joo MIN ; Gyeong-Won LEE ; Sung Sook LEE ; Kyung-Hee LEE ; Yoon Ho KO ; Byoung Yong SHIM ; Sang-We KIM ; Sang Won SHIN ; Jin-Hyuk CHOI ; Dong-Wan KIM ; Eun Kyung CHO ; Keon Uk PARK ; Jin-Soo KIM ; Sang Hoon CHUN ; Jangyoung WANG ; SeokYoung CHOI ; Jin Hyoung KANG
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(1):48-60
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail