Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Background: and Purpose: Dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer’s dementia (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), pose diagnostic challenges. This review examines the effectiveness of 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography ( 18 F-FDG PET) in differentiating these subtypes for precise treatment and management. Methods: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted using databases like PubMed and Embase to identify studies on the diagnostic utility of 18 F-FDG PET in dementia. The search included studies up to November 16, 2022, focusing on peer-reviewed journals and applying the goldstandard clinical diagnosis for dementia subtypes. Results: From 12,815 articles, 14 were selected for final analysis. For AD versus FTD, the sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–0.98) and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). In the case of AD versus DLB, 18F-FDG PET showed a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). Lastly, when differentiating AD from non-AD dementias, the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91) and the specificity was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91). The studies mostly used case-control designs with visual and quantitative assessments. Conclusions 18 F-FDG PET exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating dementia subtypes, particularly AD, FTD, and DLB. This method, while not a standalone diagnostic tool, significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy in uncertain cases, complementing clinical assessments and structural imaging.

Objective: This phase IV, multicenter, randomized controlled, open-label, and parallel clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and moderate intensity rosuvastatin combination therapy to that of high intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods: This study enrolled patients with ASCVD and after a four-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin and ezetimibe (RE 10/10 group) or high-intensity rosuvastatin (R20 group) only in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the difference in the percent change in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 12 weeks between two groups after treatment. Results: The study found that after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, the RE10/10 group had a greater reduction in LDL-C level compared to the R20 group (−22.9±2.6% vs. −15.6 ± 2.5% [p=0.041] and −24.2±2.5% vs. −12.9±2.4% [p=0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Moreover, a greater number of patients achieved the target LDL-C level of ≤70 mg/dL after the treatment period in the combination group (74.6% vs. 59.9% [p=0.012] and 76.2% vs. 50.8% [p<0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Importantly, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of overall adverse events and adverse drug reactions between two groups. Conclusion Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy had better efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels without increasing adverse effects in patients with ASCVD than high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.

Background/Aims: The Genoss DES™ is a novel, biodegradable, polymer-coated, sirolimus-eluting stent with a cobalt- chromium stent platform and thin strut. Although the safety and effectiveness of this stent have been previously investigated, real-world clinical outcomes data are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this prospective, multicenter trial was to evaluate the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Genoss DES™ in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: The Genoss DES registry is a prospective, single-arm, observational trial for evaluation of clinical outcomes after Genoss DES™ implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from 17 sites in South Korea. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Results: A total of 1,999 patients (66.4 ± 11.1 years of age; 72.8% male) were analyzed. At baseline, 62.8% and 36.7% of patients had hypertension and diabetes, respectively. The implanted stent number, diameter, and length per patient were 1.5 ± 0.8, 3.1 ± 0.5 mm, and 37.0 ± 25.0 mm, respectively. The primary endpoint occurred in 1.8% patients, with a cardiac death rate of 1.1%, target vessel-related MI rate of 0.2%, and clinically driven TLR rate of 0.8%. Conclusions In this real-world registry, the Genoss DES™ demonstrated excellent safety and effectiveness at 12 months among all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. These findings suggest that the Genoss DES™ may be a viable treatment option for patients with coronary artery disease.

Background and Objectives: Identifying patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) is important when making decisions for antiplatelet therapy strategy. This study evaluated the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) according to HBR in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with drug eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In this post-hoc analysis of the TICO trial, HBR was defined by 2 approaches: meeting Academic Research Consortium for HBR (ARC-HBR) criteria or Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent DAPT (PRECISEDAPT) score ≥25. The primary outcome was a 3–12 months net adverse clinical event (composite of major bleeding and adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Results: Of the 2,980 patients without adverse events during the first 3 months after DES implantation, 453 (15.2%) were HBR by ARC-HBR criteria and 504 (16.9%) were HBR by PRECISE-DAPT score. The primary outcome rate was higher in HBR versus non-HBR patients (by ARC-HBR criteria: hazard ratio [HR], 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76– 4.69; p<0.001; by PRECISE-DAPT score: HR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.92–4.98; p<0.001). Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was associated with lower primary outcome rate than ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT regardless of HBR by ARC-HBR criteria, with similar magnitudes of therapy effect for HBR and non-HBR patients (p-interaction=0.400). Results were consistent by PRECISE-DAPT score (p-interaction=0.178). Conclusions In ACS patients treated with DESs, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was associated with lower rate of adverse clinical outcomes regardless of HBR, with similar magnitudes of therapy effect between HBR and non-HBR.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02494895

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.