Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

Background: Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated. Methods: From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y 12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3–5. Results: A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39–2.78).The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group,P <0.01, 95% CI 2.51–3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group. Conclusion LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the participation and follow-up test compliance rates and key performance indicators of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for colorectal cancer (CRC) from 2004 to 2017. Materials and Methods: The overall outcomes of the NCSP for CRC were analyzed using the NCSP data collected from 2004 to 2017 and the Korean Central Cancer Registry for CRC from 2005 to 2017. We cross-sectionally analyzed the participation and follow-up test compliance rates and performance indicators for each year. The trend of participation rates as an annual percentage change was assessed, and other statistical analyses were performed. Results: The screening participation rates increased from 7.3% in 2004 to 30.5% in 2017. Additionally, the screening rates were higher among individuals aged 60-69 years and National Health Insurance Service beneficiaries of low-income status. However, the adherence to the follow-up test decreased from 63% in 2004 to 32% in 2017. The follow-up tests using the double-contrast barium enema method decreased from 42.2% in 2004 to 0.3% in 2017. However, follow-up tests by colonoscopy increased from 21.0% in 2004 to 31.8% in 2017. Furthermore, the positivity, false-positive, and interval CRC rates decreased, whereas the specificity increased from 2004 to 2016, indicating improved performance of CRC. Conclusion The participation rates and performance of the NCSP for CRC have steadily improved, whereas adherence to follow-up tests has decreased. Additionally, there is a rapid growth in colonoscopy volume as a follow-up test. Continued efforts are required to improve the follow-up rates.