Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Purpose: To evaluate recurrence patterns of and survival outcomes in glioblastoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively examined 91 patients with glioblastoma treated with either IMRT (n = 60) or 3D-CRT (n = 31) between January 2013 and December 2019. Magnetic resonance imaging showing tumor recurrence and planning computed tomography scans were fused for analyzing recurrence patterns categorized as in-field, marginal, and out-of-field based on their relation to the initial radiation field. Results: The median overall survival (OS) was 18.9 months, with no significant difference between the groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months, with no significant difference between the groups. Patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR) had higher OS and PFS than those who underwent less extensive surgery. Among 78 relapse cases, 67 were of in-field; 5, marginal; and 19, out-of-field recurrence. Among 3D-CRT-treated cases, 24 were of in-field; 1, marginal; and 9, out-of-field recurrence. Among IMRT-treated cases, 43 were of in-field; 4, marginal; and 10, out-of-field recurrence. In partial tumor removal or biopsy cases, out-of-field recurrence was less frequent in the IMRT (16.2%) than in the 3D-CRT (36.3%) group, with marginal significance (p = 0.079). Conclusion IMRT and 3D-CRT effectively managed glioblastoma with no significant differences in OS and PFS. The survival benefit with GTR underscored the importance of maximal surgical resection. The reduced rate of out-of-field recurrence in IMRT-treated patients with partial resection highlights its potential utility in cases with unfeasible complete tumor removal.

Purpose: To evaluate recurrence patterns of and survival outcomes in glioblastoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively examined 91 patients with glioblastoma treated with either IMRT (n = 60) or 3D-CRT (n = 31) between January 2013 and December 2019. Magnetic resonance imaging showing tumor recurrence and planning computed tomography scans were fused for analyzing recurrence patterns categorized as in-field, marginal, and out-of-field based on their relation to the initial radiation field. Results: The median overall survival (OS) was 18.9 months, with no significant difference between the groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months, with no significant difference between the groups. Patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR) had higher OS and PFS than those who underwent less extensive surgery. Among 78 relapse cases, 67 were of in-field; 5, marginal; and 19, out-of-field recurrence. Among 3D-CRT-treated cases, 24 were of in-field; 1, marginal; and 9, out-of-field recurrence. Among IMRT-treated cases, 43 were of in-field; 4, marginal; and 10, out-of-field recurrence. In partial tumor removal or biopsy cases, out-of-field recurrence was less frequent in the IMRT (16.2%) than in the 3D-CRT (36.3%) group, with marginal significance (p = 0.079). Conclusion IMRT and 3D-CRT effectively managed glioblastoma with no significant differences in OS and PFS. The survival benefit with GTR underscored the importance of maximal surgical resection. The reduced rate of out-of-field recurrence in IMRT-treated patients with partial resection highlights its potential utility in cases with unfeasible complete tumor removal.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Purpose: To evaluate recurrence patterns of and survival outcomes in glioblastoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively examined 91 patients with glioblastoma treated with either IMRT (n = 60) or 3D-CRT (n = 31) between January 2013 and December 2019. Magnetic resonance imaging showing tumor recurrence and planning computed tomography scans were fused for analyzing recurrence patterns categorized as in-field, marginal, and out-of-field based on their relation to the initial radiation field. Results: The median overall survival (OS) was 18.9 months, with no significant difference between the groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months, with no significant difference between the groups. Patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR) had higher OS and PFS than those who underwent less extensive surgery. Among 78 relapse cases, 67 were of in-field; 5, marginal; and 19, out-of-field recurrence. Among 3D-CRT-treated cases, 24 were of in-field; 1, marginal; and 9, out-of-field recurrence. Among IMRT-treated cases, 43 were of in-field; 4, marginal; and 10, out-of-field recurrence. In partial tumor removal or biopsy cases, out-of-field recurrence was less frequent in the IMRT (16.2%) than in the 3D-CRT (36.3%) group, with marginal significance (p = 0.079). Conclusion IMRT and 3D-CRT effectively managed glioblastoma with no significant differences in OS and PFS. The survival benefit with GTR underscored the importance of maximal surgical resection. The reduced rate of out-of-field recurrence in IMRT-treated patients with partial resection highlights its potential utility in cases with unfeasible complete tumor removal.

Purpose: To evaluate recurrence patterns of and survival outcomes in glioblastoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively examined 91 patients with glioblastoma treated with either IMRT (n = 60) or 3D-CRT (n = 31) between January 2013 and December 2019. Magnetic resonance imaging showing tumor recurrence and planning computed tomography scans were fused for analyzing recurrence patterns categorized as in-field, marginal, and out-of-field based on their relation to the initial radiation field. Results: The median overall survival (OS) was 18.9 months, with no significant difference between the groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months, with no significant difference between the groups. Patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR) had higher OS and PFS than those who underwent less extensive surgery. Among 78 relapse cases, 67 were of in-field; 5, marginal; and 19, out-of-field recurrence. Among 3D-CRT-treated cases, 24 were of in-field; 1, marginal; and 9, out-of-field recurrence. Among IMRT-treated cases, 43 were of in-field; 4, marginal; and 10, out-of-field recurrence. In partial tumor removal or biopsy cases, out-of-field recurrence was less frequent in the IMRT (16.2%) than in the 3D-CRT (36.3%) group, with marginal significance (p = 0.079). Conclusion IMRT and 3D-CRT effectively managed glioblastoma with no significant differences in OS and PFS. The survival benefit with GTR underscored the importance of maximal surgical resection. The reduced rate of out-of-field recurrence in IMRT-treated patients with partial resection highlights its potential utility in cases with unfeasible complete tumor removal.

Purpose: To evaluate recurrence patterns of and survival outcomes in glioblastoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively examined 91 patients with glioblastoma treated with either IMRT (n = 60) or 3D-CRT (n = 31) between January 2013 and December 2019. Magnetic resonance imaging showing tumor recurrence and planning computed tomography scans were fused for analyzing recurrence patterns categorized as in-field, marginal, and out-of-field based on their relation to the initial radiation field. Results: The median overall survival (OS) was 18.9 months, with no significant difference between the groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months, with no significant difference between the groups. Patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR) had higher OS and PFS than those who underwent less extensive surgery. Among 78 relapse cases, 67 were of in-field; 5, marginal; and 19, out-of-field recurrence. Among 3D-CRT-treated cases, 24 were of in-field; 1, marginal; and 9, out-of-field recurrence. Among IMRT-treated cases, 43 were of in-field; 4, marginal; and 10, out-of-field recurrence. In partial tumor removal or biopsy cases, out-of-field recurrence was less frequent in the IMRT (16.2%) than in the 3D-CRT (36.3%) group, with marginal significance (p = 0.079). Conclusion IMRT and 3D-CRT effectively managed glioblastoma with no significant differences in OS and PFS. The survival benefit with GTR underscored the importance of maximal surgical resection. The reduced rate of out-of-field recurrence in IMRT-treated patients with partial resection highlights its potential utility in cases with unfeasible complete tumor removal.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.