Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Background/Aims: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used as palliative or bridge to surgery treatments in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Stent occlusion is more common with uncovered stents, but stent migration is more common with covered stents. Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of a newly designed covered SEMS with an uncovered proximal flared end (CSEMS-UPF) with that of the conventional uncovered SEMS (UCSEMS) in the treatment of MCO. Methods: This prospective randomized trial was conducted at a tertiary-care academic hospital. We enrolled 87 patients with stage 4 cancer and MCO: colorectal cancer in 60 patients and extracolonic cancer in 27 patients. Insertion of UCSEMS was randomly assigned to 43 patients, and 44 patients received the CSEMS-UPF. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency after successful placement. The secondary outcomes were the number of patients with technical and clinical success and early and late complications from the stent insertion. Results: The median patency of the stent did not differ between the UCSEMS and CSEMS-UPF groups (484 [231–737] days vs. 216 [66–366] days, P= 0.242). The technical and clinical success rates did not differ significantly between the groups, either (100.0% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P= 0.241; 100.0% vs. 92.7%, respectively, P= 0.112), nor did the early (n = 2 [4.7%] vs. n = 4 [9.8%], P> 0.999) or late (n = 12 [27.9%] vs. n = 15 [36.6%], P> 0.999) stent complication rates differ between the groups. Conclusions The UCSEMS and newly developed CSEMS-UPF are similarly effective treatments for MCO, with no differences in the stent migration or occlusion rates (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02640781).

Background/Aims: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used as palliative or bridge to surgery treatments in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Stent occlusion is more common with uncovered stents, but stent migration is more common with covered stents. Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of a newly designed covered SEMS with an uncovered proximal flared end (CSEMS-UPF) with that of the conventional uncovered SEMS (UCSEMS) in the treatment of MCO. Methods: This prospective randomized trial was conducted at a tertiary-care academic hospital. We enrolled 87 patients with stage 4 cancer and MCO: colorectal cancer in 60 patients and extracolonic cancer in 27 patients. Insertion of UCSEMS was randomly assigned to 43 patients, and 44 patients received the CSEMS-UPF. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency after successful placement. The secondary outcomes were the number of patients with technical and clinical success and early and late complications from the stent insertion. Results: The median patency of the stent did not differ between the UCSEMS and CSEMS-UPF groups (484 [231–737] days vs. 216 [66–366] days, P= 0.242). The technical and clinical success rates did not differ significantly between the groups, either (100.0% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P= 0.241; 100.0% vs. 92.7%, respectively, P= 0.112), nor did the early (n = 2 [4.7%] vs. n = 4 [9.8%], P> 0.999) or late (n = 12 [27.9%] vs. n = 15 [36.6%], P> 0.999) stent complication rates differ between the groups. Conclusions The UCSEMS and newly developed CSEMS-UPF are similarly effective treatments for MCO, with no differences in the stent migration or occlusion rates (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02640781).

Background/Aims: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used as palliative or bridge to surgery treatments in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Stent occlusion is more common with uncovered stents, but stent migration is more common with covered stents. Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of a newly designed covered SEMS with an uncovered proximal flared end (CSEMS-UPF) with that of the conventional uncovered SEMS (UCSEMS) in the treatment of MCO. Methods: This prospective randomized trial was conducted at a tertiary-care academic hospital. We enrolled 87 patients with stage 4 cancer and MCO: colorectal cancer in 60 patients and extracolonic cancer in 27 patients. Insertion of UCSEMS was randomly assigned to 43 patients, and 44 patients received the CSEMS-UPF. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency after successful placement. The secondary outcomes were the number of patients with technical and clinical success and early and late complications from the stent insertion. Results: The median patency of the stent did not differ between the UCSEMS and CSEMS-UPF groups (484 [231–737] days vs. 216 [66–366] days, P= 0.242). The technical and clinical success rates did not differ significantly between the groups, either (100.0% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P= 0.241; 100.0% vs. 92.7%, respectively, P= 0.112), nor did the early (n = 2 [4.7%] vs. n = 4 [9.8%], P> 0.999) or late (n = 12 [27.9%] vs. n = 15 [36.6%], P> 0.999) stent complication rates differ between the groups. Conclusions The UCSEMS and newly developed CSEMS-UPF are similarly effective treatments for MCO, with no differences in the stent migration or occlusion rates (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02640781).

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Background/Aims: Limited knowledge exists regarding the optimal timing and relative advantages of primary surgery compared to medical treatment in ileocecal Crohn’s disease (CD). This study aimed to compare long-term outcomes between medication-based treatment versus surgery in newly diagnosed ileocecal CD patients in an Asian population. Methods: Among the 885 patients diagnosed with CD and enrolled in the study site hospital cohort between 1980 and 2013, 93 (10.5%) had ileocecal CD. Patients were categorized into either the surgical or medical remission group based on their initial management strategy that led to remission. The rates of relapse, hospitalization, and surgery after achieving remission were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: The numbers of patients assigned to surgical and medical remission groups were 15 (17.0%) and 73 (83.0%), respectively. The surgical remission group exhibited a lower relapse rate and longer maintenance of remission (10.7 vs. 3.7 yr; p = 0.017) during a median follow-up of 6.6 years. Hospitalization after the first remission tended to be lower in the surgical remission group (p = 0.054). No cases required repeated intestinal resection after the initial surgical remission, whereas a 23% surgery rate was reported at 5 years after initial medical treatment (p = 0.037). In the multivariable analysis, the initial medication-based treatment was significantly associated with relapse (hazard ratio = 3.23, p = 0.039). Conclusions In selected cases of localized ileocecal CD, ileocolic resection might be a favorable alternative to medication- based treatment, as it demonstrates a lower relapse rate and longer maintenance of remission.