Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer is known for its potential to recur many years after initial treatment. Although most recurrences occur within the first 5–10 years, late recurrence, especially beyond 15 years of age, is rare and isolated cutaneous recurrence is even less frequently reported. However, awareness of the possibility of extremely late and subtle local recurrences in patients with HR+ breast cancer has gradually increased over time. Clinicians should remain vigilant for atypical cutaneous changes near previous surgical sites, even decades after the initial treatment, and consider biopsy in the absence of classic signs of recurrence. We report the case of a 56-year-old woman who experienced an isolated cutaneous recurrence nearly 20 years after mastectomy for HR+ breast cancer, presenting with only faint erythema.

Hypovolemic shock and septic shock present similar symptoms, such as increased heart rate and decreased blood pressure. However, the two conditions have different causes, mechanisms, and treatment approaches. Early differentiation between the two conditions can have a positive impact on patient prognosis. In this case, the patient underwent a right ovarian cystectomy due to a teratoma torsion during a previous pregnancy, followed by treatment for a postoperative infection. While recovering, the patient underwent an emergency cesarean section due to sudden severe abdominal pain. After the surgery, unstable vital signs were suggestive of hypovolemia due to massive bleeding from the cesarean section. Therefore, fluid infusion and blood transfusion were initiated. The vital signs did not improve. So, the patient was reassessed. Body temperature and the previously elevated C-reactive protein levels were remeasured. The results of the reassessment indicated a septic condition due to previous infection. The patient was prescribed additional vasopressors and antibiotics for the following week. Subsequently, the patient’s vital signs stabilized, and the treatment was discontinued.

Hypovolemic shock and septic shock present similar symptoms, such as increased heart rate and decreased blood pressure. However, the two conditions have different causes, mechanisms, and treatment approaches. Early differentiation between the two conditions can have a positive impact on patient prognosis. In this case, the patient underwent a right ovarian cystectomy due to a teratoma torsion during a previous pregnancy, followed by treatment for a postoperative infection. While recovering, the patient underwent an emergency cesarean section due to sudden severe abdominal pain. After the surgery, unstable vital signs were suggestive of hypovolemia due to massive bleeding from the cesarean section. Therefore, fluid infusion and blood transfusion were initiated. The vital signs did not improve. So, the patient was reassessed. Body temperature and the previously elevated C-reactive protein levels were remeasured. The results of the reassessment indicated a septic condition due to previous infection. The patient was prescribed additional vasopressors and antibiotics for the following week. Subsequently, the patient’s vital signs stabilized, and the treatment was discontinued.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Hypovolemic shock and septic shock present similar symptoms, such as increased heart rate and decreased blood pressure. However, the two conditions have different causes, mechanisms, and treatment approaches. Early differentiation between the two conditions can have a positive impact on patient prognosis. In this case, the patient underwent a right ovarian cystectomy due to a teratoma torsion during a previous pregnancy, followed by treatment for a postoperative infection. While recovering, the patient underwent an emergency cesarean section due to sudden severe abdominal pain. After the surgery, unstable vital signs were suggestive of hypovolemia due to massive bleeding from the cesarean section. Therefore, fluid infusion and blood transfusion were initiated. The vital signs did not improve. So, the patient was reassessed. Body temperature and the previously elevated C-reactive protein levels were remeasured. The results of the reassessment indicated a septic condition due to previous infection. The patient was prescribed additional vasopressors and antibiotics for the following week. Subsequently, the patient’s vital signs stabilized, and the treatment was discontinued.

The hygiene hypothesis, first proposed in 1989, suggested that reduced exposure to infections in early life leads to allergic diseases by the defects in the establishment of immune tolerance. Although many studies provided evidence that some exposure conditions, including family size, antibiotics, probiotics, and viral or bacterial infections, are strongly related to the prevalence of allergic diseases, thereby supporting the hygiene hypothesis, some evidence does not provide acceptable results for the hygiene hypothesis. Further, most studies have focused on patients with asthma or atopic dermatitis, not allergic rhinitis. In this review, we summarize the recent studies for and against the ‘hygiene hypothesis’ and identify causal association with the prevalence of allergic rhinitis.

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.