Purpose: Low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for surveillance 2–3 years after curative resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, supporting clinical evidence is limited. This study compared LDCT with contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CECT) in terms of recurrence detection and overall survival (OS) in patients 2 years after curative resection of NSCLC. Materials and Methods: Among patients who underwent curative resection for NSCLC between January 2011 and December 2017 and survived for 2 years without recurrence, 2,083 patients were included. Comparisons between the LDCT and CECT groups were performed in both the entire cohort and propensity score-matched cohort. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival. Secondary outcomes included time-to-recurrence, recurrence-free survival, and post-recurrence survival in each group. Results: In the propensity score-matched population, the 5-year OS (96.0% for LDCT, 98.0% for CECT, p=0.097) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (95.4% for LDCT, 96.0% for CECT, p=0.761) did not differ. The OS and RFS did not differ in subgroup analyses stratified by pathologic stage and histologic type. In the competing risk analysis, the overall 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence did not differ between the two groups (4.56% for LDCT, 3.93% for CECT, p=0.765). When stratified by pathologic stage and histologic type, there was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of recurrence. The distribution of recurrence sites did not differ between groups. Conclusion Similar OS and RFS were observed in LDCT and CECT surveillance in patients who achieved a 2-year disease-free status after curative resection for NSCLC.

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.

Purpose: Langer's axillary arch (LAA) is a common muscular variant that may affect the assessment of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. We investigated whether the presence of the LAA had a meaningful clinical impact in a large cohort of Korean patients with breast cancer. Methods: The medical records and imaging of 2,904 patients (2,953 cases) who underwent axillary surgery for breast cancer were reviewed. The presence of LAA was determined using chest computed tomography scans. The number of retrieved lymph nodes, the accuracy of axillary ultrasonography, and survival outcomes were compared between the LAA and nonLAA groups. Results: The LAA muscle was identified in 301 patients (10.2%). Preoperative ultrasound evaluation showed a lower specificity in the LAA group (77.9% vs. 83.6%, p = 0.031).Additionally, invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) was significantly worse in the ‘LAA-positive patients’ after adjusting for stage, histologic grade, and treatment (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.00–4.01; p = 0.048), with regional axillary recurrence being notably more frequent in patients with the LAA muscle (p = 0.005). Conclusion The presence of the LAA muscle was associated with reduced specificity on preoperative ultrasound. Patients with LAA muscle-associated tumors had worse iDFS, with regional axillary recurrence occurring more frequently. Recognition of the LAA muscle during axillary staging and surgery may improve nodal assessment accuracy and outcomes, especially in the era of axillary surgery de-escalation.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.