Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data. Materials and Methods: A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed. Results: Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS. Conclusion BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data. Materials and Methods: A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed. Results: Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS. Conclusion BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data. Materials and Methods: A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed. Results: Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS. Conclusion BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.

Purpose: Stem cell transplantation (SCT) has historically played a major role in the long-term remission of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), an incurable hematological malignancy. Using data from the Korean Society of Bone and Marrow Transplantation registry, we retrospectively analyzed the role of autologous (auto) and allogeneic (allo) SCT in longterm MCL survival. Methods: This study analyzed data from 188 patients (age ≥ 19 years at the time of transplantation) who underwent a transplant for MCL from 2011 to 2020. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from transplantation to disease progression, relapse, or death from any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from transplan‑ tation to death from any cause or the last follow-up. Results: In total, 109 patients underwent consolidative SCT after first-line chemotherapy. The 3-year PFS and OS rates were 65.4% and 78.5%, respectively, in the auto-SCT group, and 66.7% and 71.4%, respectively, in the allo-SCT group. The PFS and OS did not differ significantly between the auto- and allo-SCT groups. As part of salvage treatment, 52 patients with relapsed or refractory disease underwent auto- or allo-SCT. Patients who underwent auto-SCT with complete remis‑ sion/partial remission status reported better outcomes. In patients with refractory status, allogeneic transplantation using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) fully matched donors was a significantly favorable factor for PFS and OS. Conclusion The long-term survival of patients who underwent consolidative transplantation was similar to that reported in previous studies. Auto-SCT may be beneficial in patients who respond to salvage therapy, whereas allo-SCT with HLA-matched donors may be an alternative for patients with refractory disease. 

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Clinicians and healthcare decision-makers conduct their clinical practice based on the results of clinical trials. However, some health problems remain unresolved; in such cases, further research is required. To ensure reliable research results, it is important to understand the study design and conduct well-designed clinical trials. Many study designs can be chosen within the two broad categories of observational and interventional. Clinical studies have a variety of designs, including case series, case-control, cross-sectional, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Well-designed clinical studies can clarify important differences between treatment options and provide data on long-term drug efficacy and safety. Interpreting the results of clinical trials can be difficult because weaknesses in research design, data collection methods, analytic methods, and reporting can compromise their value and usefulness. However, although randomized controlled trials are limited owing to ethical and practical issues, they are optimal for investigating the effects of therapy and establishing causality. Here we present an overview of different clinical research designs and review their advantages and limitations.