Purpose: This study investigated the results of antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing in Korean patients with uveitis, examining its relationship with the clinical course of uveitis and systemic diseases. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 64 patients with noninfectious uveitis who underwent ANA testing and were followed for at least 6 months at the Department of Ophthalmology at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital from January 2006 to December 2021. Patients were divided into ANA-positive and ANA-negative groups and correlations between uveitis-related factors and ANA status were assessed. Results: Among the 516 patients tested for ANA, 6.58% (34/516) were positive. The initial visual acuity (logMAR) before treatment was significantly better in the ANA-positive group (0.21 ± 0.20) than in the ANA-negative group (0.59 ± 0.68) (p = 0.002). However, the final visual acuity after treatment showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Additionally, no statistically significant differences were observed in terms of immune deficiency status, types of associated rheumatic disease, rheumatoid factor positivity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein (define) levels, or treatment modalities. No significant correlation was found between ANA titers and the severity of uveitis. Conclusions Relationships between ANA positivity and the etiology, treatment outcomes, and systemic diseases associated with uveitis are unclear. Routine ANA testing is not recommended for the diagnosis of uveitis.

Purpose: To compare the anatomical and clinical outcomes based on the distance from the corneal limbus to the scleral tunnel in flanged intrascleral intraocular lens (IOL) fixation. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients who underwent scleral fixation of flanged IOLs. Group 1 (54 eyes) had a distance of 2.1 mm from the corneal limbus to the scleral tunnel, and Group 2 (48 eyes) had a distance of 2.8 mm. We evaluated the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, IOL tilt and decentration, refractive prediction error (RPE), effective lens position, and iris-IOL distance. Results: The BCVA, postoperative complications, IOL tilt, and IOL decentration did not differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). The RPE showed a hyperopic shift in Group 1 and a myopic shift in Group 2 (Group 1: +0.24 ± 0.68 D, Group 2: -0.03 ± 0.43 D, p = 0.03). The iris-IOL distance was statistically longer in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (Group 1: 1.02 ± 0.40 mm, Group 2: 0.57 ± 0.32 mm, p = 0.02). The incidence of pupillary optic capture was significantly higher in Group 2 compared to Group 1 (Group 1; 0%, Group 2; 8.3%, p = 0.03). Conclusions It should be considered that a shorter distance from the corneal limbus to the scleral tunnel results in a postoperative hyperopic shift and reduces the incidence of pupillary optic capture when performing flanged intrascleral IOLs fixation.

Purpose: The male predominance in the incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is established; however, sex differences in the prognosis of GC remain controversial. As such, this study analyzed the prognosis of patients with GC based on age and sex. Materials and Methods: Data from 14,739 patients diagnosed with GC at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between 2003 and 2023 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, histological types of GC, overall and GC-specific survival rates (age and stage stratification), and associated risk factors were analyzed. Results: Females were significantly younger (p < 0.001) and exhibited more gastric body cancers (p < 0.001) and tumors with diffuse-type or poorly differentiated histology (p < 0.001) than males. Females exhibited an advantage over males in terms of overall survival (p=0.004), but not in GC-specific survival. However, age stratification revealed significant sex differences, that females < 50 years of age exhibited survival disadvantages (p < 0.001); however, this trend was reversed with age, and females > 60 years exhibited survival advantages (p < 0.001) for both overall and GC-specific survival. This may be explained by the lower ratio of diffuse-type GC as females age. Furthermore, in the analysis according to stage, females with stage IV disease exhibited significant survival disadvantages, with significantly younger age and a higher proportion of diffuse-type GC which exhibits aggressive features, resulting in poorer survival than in males. Conclusion Age and stage stratification revealed significant differences in survival between the sexes, which can be helpful for public health strategies.

Purpose: This study evaluates the Korean Cancer Study Group Geriatric Score-7 (KG-7) frailty screening tool’s effectiveness in elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients to prevent under and overtreatment. Materials and Methods: This prospective pilot cohort study included 100 elderly patients aged 70 and older with newly diagnosed MM who had not undergone transplantation from August 2020 to January 2022. Results: The median age was 77 years, and 73.0% of patients were classified at International Staging System stages 2 or 3. Using a 5-point cutoff on the KG-7 index (non-frail, score ≥ 5; frail, score < 5), 31% were categorized as frail. After a median follow-up of 26.8 months, the 3-year overall survival rate was 73.0%. There was no statistically significant association between any frailty index and the risk of death. However, frail patients defined by the simplified frailty index (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 5.95; p=0.030) and by KG-7 (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.03 to 5.86; p=0.043) had a significantly higher risk of grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity, whereas the International Myeloma Working Group definition did not. Over a 24-month tracking period, vulnerability as measured by KG-7 either improved or deteriorated. Conclusion The pilot study, which had a limited number of participants, did not demonstrate KG-7’s effectiveness in predicting survival; however, it successfully predicted severe non-hematologic toxicities. We plan to conduct larger studies in elderly MM patients to determine whether KG-7 can help tailor their treatment regimens.

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.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis, characterized by decreased bone mineral density due to an imbalance between osteoblast and osteoclast activity, poses significant challenges in bone healing, particularly in postmenopausal women. Current treatments, such as bisphosphonates, are effective but associated with adverse effects like medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, necessitating safer alternatives. METHODS: This study investigated the use of L-serine-incorporated gelatin sponges for bone regeneration in calvarial defects in an ovariectomized rat model of osteoporosis. Thirty rats were divided into three groups: a control group, a group treated with a gelatin sponge containing an amino acid mixture, and a group treated with a gelatin sponge containing L-serine. Bone regeneration was assessed using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and histological analyses. RESULTS: The L-serine group showed a significant increase in bone volume (BV) and bone area compared to the control and amino acid groups. The bone volume to total volume (BV/TV) ratio was also significantly higher in the L-serine group.Immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated that L-serine treatment suppressed the expression of cathepsin K, a marker of osteoclast activity, while increasing serine racemase activity. CONCLUSION These findings suggest that L-serine-incorporated gelatin sponges not only enhance bone formation but also inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, providing a promising and safer alternative to current therapies for osteoporosis-related bone defects. Further research is needed to explore its clinical applications in human patients.

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.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis, characterized by decreased bone mineral density due to an imbalance between osteoblast and osteoclast activity, poses significant challenges in bone healing, particularly in postmenopausal women. Current treatments, such as bisphosphonates, are effective but associated with adverse effects like medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, necessitating safer alternatives. METHODS: This study investigated the use of L-serine-incorporated gelatin sponges for bone regeneration in calvarial defects in an ovariectomized rat model of osteoporosis. Thirty rats were divided into three groups: a control group, a group treated with a gelatin sponge containing an amino acid mixture, and a group treated with a gelatin sponge containing L-serine. Bone regeneration was assessed using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and histological analyses. RESULTS: The L-serine group showed a significant increase in bone volume (BV) and bone area compared to the control and amino acid groups. The bone volume to total volume (BV/TV) ratio was also significantly higher in the L-serine group.Immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated that L-serine treatment suppressed the expression of cathepsin K, a marker of osteoclast activity, while increasing serine racemase activity. CONCLUSION These findings suggest that L-serine-incorporated gelatin sponges not only enhance bone formation but also inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, providing a promising and safer alternative to current therapies for osteoporosis-related bone defects. Further research is needed to explore its clinical applications in human patients.

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.