Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. Methods: A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). Conclusion There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.