Background/Aims: The optimal vascular access strategy for very elderly patients initiating hemodialysis (HD) remains unclear. Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) offer long-term benefits but may be limited due to vascular aging. This study evaluated vascular access outcomes in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service between 2008 and 2019. Patients aged ≥ 80 years who initiated HD with a newly created AVF or arteriovenous graft (AVG) were included. Primary outcomes were primary, assisted primary, and secondary patency. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results: Among 8,487 patients, 5,124 (60.4%) received AVFs (AVF group) and 3,363 (39.6%) received AVGs (AVG group). AVFs were associated with significantly lower rates of patency loss across all definitions. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for AVG vs. AVF were 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67–1.86) for primary patency loss, 1.90 (95% CI, 1.77–2.03) for assisted primary, and 3.18 (95% CI, 2.81–3.61) for secondary patency loss. All-cause mortality was also higher in the AVG group (adjusted HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17–1.30). Conclusions In this large-scale study, AVF use was associated with superior patency and lower mortality compared with AVG in patients aged ≥ 80 years. These findings suggest that AVF remains a beneficial option for appropriately selected elderly patients and that age alone should not be a primary barrier to its creation.

Purpose: Non-operative management (NOM) has emerged as a promising organ-preserving strategy for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). However, no standardized treatment protocol has been established for watch-and-wait strategies. Materials and Methods: This prospective study evaluated oncological outcomes of NOM combined with 4 months of adjuvant capecitabine. Patients with resectable rectal cancer (≤ 8 cm from the anal verge, cT2-4 or N+) underwent CRT (50-54 Gy in 25-27 fractions with capecitabine). Eight weeks post-CRT, a multidisciplinary team assessed cCR. Patients achieving cCR received six cycles of capecitabine (2 weeks on/1 week off) and were actively monitored. Results: Among 89 patients receiving CRT (2018-2023), 17 (19.1%) achieved cCR and were included. The median age was 65 years, and 64.7% were male. Eleven (64.7%) completed all six cycles of adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 31.4 months, 11 patients (64.7%) remained disease-free. Local regrowth occurred in six patients (35.3%) with 2- and 4-year rates of 34.5% and 47.6%, respectively. Five underwent radical surgery, and one received transanal excision with systemic chemotherapy. At the time of assessment, 15 patients (88.2%) showed no evidence of disease, while two (11.8%) received palliative chemotherapy. All patients were alive. Conclusion NOM with adjuvant capecitabine showed promising oncological outcomes, offering an alternative to passive watch-and-wait approaches. Further refinement through multidisciplinary strategies is warranted.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the detection ability of quality of life (QoL) changes and responsiveness of the KOrean QUality of life in Stomach cancer patients Study group (KOQUSS)-40 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ). Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate QoL changes after various gastrectomies between January 2021 and April 2022. Participants were instructed to complete the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. QoL changes over time and QoL responsiveness were assessed for each questionnaire. Results: Data from 491 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer at 22 institutions were analyzed. The summary scores of the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-STO22 showed significant differences between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.044 and p=0.038, respectively), but no difference was observed for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Dysphagia on the KOQUSS-40 was significantly different between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.031); however, dysphagia on the EORTC QLQ-STO22 did not differ. The responsiveness of the KOQUSS-40 was similar to that of the EORTC QLQ in patients who experienced ≥ 10% body weight loss, but approximately 10% less in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy than the EORTC QLQ. Conclusion KOQUSS-40 has several advantages over EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 when comparing QoL between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups. The findings provide information for researchers investigating the QoL of patients who have undergone curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of coil embolization of venous segments in patients with Type IIa pelvic arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 13 patients (median age, 43 years, range 20–62 years, 7 males) who underwent transvenous coil embolization for Type IIa pelvic AVM (characterized by multiple arterioles shunting to focal venous segments of a single draining vein) without the use of additional liquid embolic agents from March 2017 to February 2023. Treatment outcomes were analyzed based on clinical evaluations, post angiography findings, and follow-up CT. Results: Fourteen procedures were performed on 13 patients. Except in one patient, all treatments were completed in a single session. Transvenous access was employed in 10 procedures, whereas direct puncture was used in four sessions. The embolization procedures used an average of 55.7 ± 58.5 coils (range, 7–238) and lasted an average of 127.3 ± 39.5 minutes.The technical success rate was 92.9% (of 13/14). All patients reported symptom improvement. Follow-up CT scans showed complete occlusion of the AVM without recurrence in ten of the 13 patients. There was one minor adverse event: a small retroperitoneal hemorrhage, likely related to direct puncture, which resolved spontaneously. No other adverse events were observed. Conclusion Coil embolization of the draining vein segment, without the use of additional liquid embolic agents is a safe and effective method for managing Type IIa pelvic AVM.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of coil embolization of venous segments in patients with Type IIa pelvic arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 13 patients (median age, 43 years, range 20–62 years, 7 males) who underwent transvenous coil embolization for Type IIa pelvic AVM (characterized by multiple arterioles shunting to focal venous segments of a single draining vein) without the use of additional liquid embolic agents from March 2017 to February 2023. Treatment outcomes were analyzed based on clinical evaluations, post angiography findings, and follow-up CT. Results: Fourteen procedures were performed on 13 patients. Except in one patient, all treatments were completed in a single session. Transvenous access was employed in 10 procedures, whereas direct puncture was used in four sessions. The embolization procedures used an average of 55.7 ± 58.5 coils (range, 7–238) and lasted an average of 127.3 ± 39.5 minutes.The technical success rate was 92.9% (of 13/14). All patients reported symptom improvement. Follow-up CT scans showed complete occlusion of the AVM without recurrence in ten of the 13 patients. There was one minor adverse event: a small retroperitoneal hemorrhage, likely related to direct puncture, which resolved spontaneously. No other adverse events were observed. Conclusion Coil embolization of the draining vein segment, without the use of additional liquid embolic agents is a safe and effective method for managing Type IIa pelvic AVM.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Background: Dutasteride, a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, is prescribed for male androgenetic alopecia (AGA) in Korea and Japan. Despite its efficacy, its use is limited by its long half-life, potent dihydrotestosterone suppression, and adverse effects. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of 0.2 mg dutasteride for male AGA. Methods: Patients with male AGA were randomized to receive 0.2 mg dutasteride, placebo, or 0.5 mg dutasteride (2:2:1) once daily for 24 weeks. Safety and efficacy endpoints were assessed. Results: Overall, 139 men were analyzed. At week 24, the change in hair count within the target area at the vertex from baseline was significantly higher in the 0.2 mg dutasteride group than in the placebo group (21.53 vs. 5.96, p=0.0072). Dutasteride (0.2 mg) treatment led to greater hair growth improvement, as assessed by investigators at week 24 (p=0.0096) and an independent panel at weeks 12 and 24 (p=0.0306, p=0.0001). For all efficacy endpoints, 0.2 mg dutasteride was as effective as 0.5 mg dutasteride. The incidence of adverse events was low and not statistically different between the 0.2 mg dutasteride and placebo groups. The limitation of this study is the limited number of participants. Conclusion Low-dose (0.2 mg) dutasteride for male AGA showed significant efficacy and favorable safety profile.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04825561