Purpose: Smoking cessation intervention is one of the key components of successful lung cancer screening program. We investigated the effectiveness and related factors of smoking cessation services provided to the participants in a population-based lung cancer screening trial. Materials and Methods: The Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a nationwide, multi-center lung cancer screening trial that evaluates the feasibility of implementing population-based lung cancer screening. All 5,144 current smokers who participated in the K-LUCAS received a mandatory smoking cessation counseling. Changes in smoking status were followed up using a telephone survey in 6 months after lung cancer screening participation. The lung cancer screening’s impact on smoking cessation is analyzed by variations in the smoking cessation interventions provided in screening units. Results: Among 4,136 survey responders, participant’s motivation to quit smoking increased by 9.4% on average after lung cancer screening. After 6 months from the initial screening, 24.3% of participants stopped smoking, and 10.6% of participants had not smoked continuously for at least 6 months after screening. Over 80% of quitters stated that participation in lung cancer screening motivated them to quit smoking. Low-cost public smoking cessation program combined with lung cancer screening increased the abstinence rates. The smokers were three times more likely to quit smoking when the smoking cessation counseling was provided simultaneously with low-dose computed tomography screening results than when provided separately. Conclusion A mandatory smoking cessation intervention integrated with screening result counselling by a physician after participation in lung cancer screening could be effective for increasing smoking cessation attempts.

The objective of this study was to compare recommendations of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022) with other recently published guidelines for treating bipolar disorder. We reviewed a total of six recently published global treatment guidelines and compared treatment recommendation of the KMAP-BP 2022 with those of other guidelines. For initial treatment of mania, there were no significant differences across treatment guidelines. All guidelines recommended mood stabilizer (MS) or atypical antipsychotic (AAP) monotherapy or a combination of an MS with an AAP as a first-line treatment strategy in a same degree for mania. However, the KMAP-BP 2022 recommended MS + AAP combination therapy for psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression as treatment of choice. Aripiprazole, quetiapine and olanzapine were the first-line AAPs for nearly all phases of bipolar disorder across guidelines. Some guideline suggested olanzapine is a second-line options during maintenance treatment, related to concern about long-term tolerability. Most guidelines advocated newer AAPs (asenapine, cariprazine, long-acting injectable risperidone, and aripiprazole once monthly) as first-line treatment options for all phases while lamotrigine was recommended for depressive and maintenance phases. Lithium and valproic acid were commonly used as MSs in all phases of bipolar disorder. KMAP-BP 2022 guidelines were similar to other guidelines, reflecting current changes in prescription patterns for bipolar disorder based on accumulated research data. Strong preference for combination therapy was characteristic of KMAP-BP 2022, predominantly in the treatment of psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression.

Objectives: This study revised the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2018 for rapid cycling. Methods: Questionnaires to survey the expert opinion of medication for rapid cycling were completed by a review committee consisting of 87 Korean expert psychiatrists. The experts’ opinions were classified into three categories based on the lowest category in which the confidence interval fell (6.5≤ for first-line, 3.5≤ for second-line, and 3.5> for third-line treatment). Results: The first-line treatments were a combination of mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics, atypical antipsychotics monotherapy, or mood stabilizer monotherapy. Furthermore, a mood stabilizer with lamotrigine therapy and an atypical antipsychotic with lamotrigine combinations was the first-line treatment for a depressive episode. The first-line medications in all episodes were valproate, lithium, quetiapine, olanzapine, and aripiprazole. Risperidone was the first-line medication in manic episodes and mixed states, and lamotrigine was the first-line medication for treating depressive episodes. Conclusion Compared to the surveys in 2018, the preference for atypical antipsychotics and lamotrigine has increased, and the modalities as a second-line treatment are more diversified.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to revise the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) 2022: children and adolescents. Methods: We performed a survey, using a questionnaire comprising 23 questions according to various situations facing children and adolescents with bipolar disorders. A total of 40 of the 60 experts in child and adolescent psychiatry responded to the survey. Results: The first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for manic and depressive episodes in children with bipolar disorders were a combination of mood stabilizer (MS) and atypical antipsychotics (AAP). The first-line medications selected for these children were aripiprazole (treatment of choice, TOC) and risperidone. The first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for manic episodes in adolescents were a combination of MS and an AAP (TOC), monotherapy with MS, and monotherapy with an AAP. Lithium, valproate, aripiprazole, risperidone, and quetiapine were selected as first-line medications for these adolescents. First-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for depressive episodes in adolescents were a combination of MS and an AAP, monotherapy with MS, and monotherapy with an AAP. The first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for the depressive episodes in adolescents at high risk for bipolar disorder were a combination of MS and AAP and monotherapy with an AAP. Lithium, valproate, aripiprazole (TOC), quetiapine, and risperidone were selected as first-line medications for the treatment of depressive episodes in adolescents with bipolar disorder. Conclusion It is expected that the present KMAP-BP 2022: children and adolescents will give the direction and be usefully applied by clinicians to treat children and adolescents with bipolar disorders.

Objectives: In this study, we investigated and organized the maintenance-treatment strategies for Bipolar I and II disorders outlined in The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022). Methods: The questionnaire sought to survey expert opinion on medication for bipolar disorders and was completed by a review committee consisting of 87 experienced Korean psychiatrists. It comprised 56 questions, and each question included various sub-items. The questionnaire for the maintenance treatments covered overall treatment strategies after acute mood episodes in bipolar I and II disorders, the choice of mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics and antidepressants, duration of medication, and treatment strategies for breakthrough symptoms. Results: In the case of bipolar I disorder, mood stabilizer monotherapy, atypical antipsychotics monotherapy, and a combination of mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics were selected as the first-line treatments. In maintenance management of bipolar II disorder, mood stabilizer monotherapy, atypical antipsychotics monotherapy, and combinations of mood stabilizers were selected as the preferred first-line treatments. Conclusion There has been a growing body of evidence that atypical antipsychotics have a greater preference than observed in the previous KMAP-BP of 2018. Also, monotherapy of mood stabilizers or atypical antipsychotics was more frequently selected in KMAP-BP 2022 than in the KMAP-BP 2018.

Objectives: The safety and tolerability of drugs are very important to ensure compliance and efficacy in the treatment of bipolar disorders. An expert opinion survey was conducted on treatment strategies in various special clinical situations, such as patients with significant weight gain, reporting characteristic drug side effects, low drug adherence, pregnant and reproductive women, and genetic counseling. Methods: A written survey that addressed treatment strategies related to safety and tolerability was prepared. The survey focused on significant weight gain, characteristic drug side effects, low drug adherence, treatment of pregnant and reproductive women, and genetic counseling. Eighty-seven experts in the review committee completed the survey. Results: In the case of weight gain occurring during drug treatment, it was considered preferable to replace the treatment drug with a drug that caused less weight gain, such as lamotrigine, aripiprazole, or ziprasidone. If there was a significant weight gain due to the treatment drug, it was considered preferable to intervene as soon as possible. In the case of hyperprolactinemia, it was considered preferable to change the drug. It was recommended that the drug beto discontinued in case of a benign rash as seen in patients treated with lamotrigine. For improving drug adherence, there was an increased preference for long-acting injections. It was also opined that antipsychotics should be used with great caution in pregnant or reproductive women. Conclusion Treatment strategies in various clinical situations related to the safety and tolerability of drugs for bipolar disorder have been described. It is hoped that this information would be useful in practical clinical situations.

Objectives: The present study was carried out to revise the guidelines for the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) 2018. The revision was carried out based on expert opinions to facilitate clinical decisions related to the treatment of bipolar disorders in patients with comorbid physical illnesses. Methods: A 56-item questionnaire was developed; a consensus was arrived at by 87 out of 93 experts (93.5%), on the pharmacological treatment strategies to be used in cases of comorbid physical illnesses accompanying bipolar disorders. Results: For patients with bipolar disorder exhibiting comorbid conditions, by consensus, lamotrigine, aripiprazole, and ziprasidone were recommended as the first-line strategies for metabolic syndrome; lamotrigine and aripiprazole were the recommended first-line strategies for cardiovascular problems; lithium and aripiprazole were the recommended first-line strategies for haptic problems; valproate, lamotrigine, aripiprazole, and quetiapine were the recommended first-line strategies for renal problems; and valproate and aripiprazole were the recommended first-line strategies for cerebrovascular problems or cerebral damage. Conclusion The present study is the most recent consensus among experts on recommendations for the treatment of bipolar disorders in patients with comorbid physical illnesses. Aripiprazole was recommended as the first-line pharmacotherapeutic agent in five comorbid physical conditions. This recommendation is similar to KMAP-BP 2018. Additionally, lamotrigine has been added as a first -line pharmacotherapeutic agent in patients with the metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular problems, and renal problems in the current algorithm.

Objectives: The fifth revision of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) was undertaken to provide more precise guidelines for clinicians. In this study, we evaluated treatment strategies recommended by the KMAP-BP 2022 for theelderly patients with bipolar disorder. Methods: The review committee comprised eighty-seven psychiatrists with vast clinical experience in treating bipolar disorders, who completed a survey. An expert consensus was obtained on pharmacological treatment strategies for elderly patients with bipolar disorders. The executive committee analyzed the data and discussed the results to produce the final algorithm. Results: In elderly patients with bipolar disorders, the first-line treatment option for manic episodes is monotherapy, with atypical antipsychotics or mood stabilizers, and a combination of a mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotics. The first-line treatment option for depressive episodes was a combination of a mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotics, monotherapy with atypical antipsychotics or a mood stabilizer or lamotrigine, and a combination of atypical antipsychotics or a mood stabilizer with lamotrigine. Conclusion In the KMAP-BP 2022, the recommendation for treatment options for elderly patients with bipolar disorder, has been newly introduced. We expect that this algorithm would provide valuable information for the treatment of elderly patients with bipolar disorder.

Purpose: This study was to investigate the frequency of mismatch repair deficiency/high microsatellite instability (MMRd/MSI-H) in gynecologic malignancies and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with recurrent gynecologic cancers according to MMR/MSI status. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective review on the patients who were diagnosed with gynecologic cancers between 2015 and 2020. Their clinicopathologic information, results of immunohistochemistry staining for MLH1/MSH2/MSH6/PMS2 and MSI analysis, tumor response to treatment with ICIs were investigated. Results: Among 1,093 patients included in the analysis, MMRd/MSI-H was most frequent in endometrial/uterine cancers (34.8%, 164/471), followed by ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers (12.8%, 54/422) and cervical cancer (11.3%, 21/186). When assessed by histology without regard for cancer types, the frequency of MMRd/MSI-H was 11.0% (38/345) in high-grade serous adenocarcinoma, 38.6% (117/303) in endometrioid adenocarcinoma, and 30.2% (16/53) in carcinosarcoma. A total of 114 patients were treated with ICIs at least once. The objective response rate (ORR) was 21.6% (8/37) in cervical cancer, 4.7% (2/43) in ovarian cancer, and 25.8% (8/31) in endometrial/uterine cancers. Univariate regression analysis identified MMRd/MSI-H as the only significant factor associated with the ORR (28.9% [11/38] vs. 11.8% [9/76]; odds ratio, 3.033; 95% confidence interval, 1.129–8.144; p=0.028). Conclusion The frequency of MMRd/MSI-H is moderate to high in gynecologic cancers in the Korean population. MMRd/MSI-H could be effective predictive biomarkers in gynecologic cancers of any type.