Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.

Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Background: We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score. Results: The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar. Conclusion The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.

Background: Studies on whether donor-to-recipient sex match status affects long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) have yielded contradictory results. This study evaluated whether donor-to-recipient sex match status influenced long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high-volume center. Methods: The study included 6,664 patients who underwent primary LT between January 2000 and December 2022 at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups according to donor-to-recipient sex match status: male-to-male (n=3,427 [51.4%]), male-to-female (n=1,152 [17.3%]), female-to-male (n=1,385 [20.8%]), and female-to-female (n=700 [10.5%]). Results: Regarding clinical characteristics, the four groups differed significantly regarding background liver disease (P<0.001), model for end-stage liver disease score (P<0.001), serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II level (P=0.003), presence of concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; P<0.001), and type of LT (P=0.003). Overall survival (OS) of all LT recipients did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.377). Donor-to-recipient sex match status did not affect long-term OS in either LDLT (P=0.176) or DDLT (P=0.220) groups. In addition, sex match status did not significantly influence posttransplant OS among patients who underwent LDLT without HCC (P=0.464), LDLT with HCC (P=0.236), DDLT without HCC (P=0.338), or DDLT with HCC (P=0.818). Conclusions Donor-to-recipient sex match status does not significantly affect posttransplant patient survival or HCC prognosis after LDLT or DDLT.

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: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.