Background/Aims: We investigated whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Korea have an increased risk of hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections and sought to identify the risk factors for these infections. Methods: We performed a nationwide population-based study using 2013–2021 data from the Korean National Health Insurance Claims Database. We calculated the incidence rates and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of HAV and HCV infections in patients with IBD compared with the overall Korean population. Results: A total of 43,513 patients were included in this study. A total of 317 cases of HAV were identified in 276,007 perdison- years, while 297 cases of HAV developed in the Korean general population. The SIR of HAV in the patients with IBD was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96–1.19) and the increase of HAV infection in patients with IBD was not statistically significant. A total of 289 cases of HCV infection were identified in 276,538 person-years, while 242 cases of HCV infection developed in the Korean general population. The SIR of HCV in patients with IBD was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.06–1.34) and the increase of HCV infection in patients with Crohn's disease (SIR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.31–2.04). Corticosteroid use was identified as a risk factor for HAV and HCV infections in patients with IBD. Conclusions HCV showed an increasing trend in Korean patients with IBD, especially those with Crohn's disease. Corticosteroids use is a risk factor for hepatitis in patients with IBD.

Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

In patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), initial recurrence risk stratification based on clinical, histopathological, and perioperative data remains the key determinant for guiding management strategies during the first 1-2 years post-treatment. However, the adoption of ongoing risk stratification (ORS), which dynamically reassesses risk by integrating longitudinal clinical data and treatment response, enables more precise long-term prognostic assessment and facilitates highly individualized management. Building upon recent guidelines, the 2026 KTA guideline has been further refined by incorporating robust evidence from large-scale national cohorts and comprehensive systematic reviews. These updated recommendations outline contemporary concepts of ORS, risk-adapted TSH suppression targets, optimized surveillance modalities for recurrence detection, and disease-specific long-term follow-up strategies. Reflecting the paradigm shift toward de-escalated treatment, this revision integrates evolved perspectives on TSH suppression intensity, the clinical interpretation of thyroglobulin levels, and tailored follow-up intervals. These evidence-based recommendations aim to minimize unnecessary treatment and excessive surveillance in the large proportion of patients with excellent prognosis after initial therapy, while ensuring that each patient receives appropriately tailored and effective long-term management.

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.

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.

Background: Rare cases of Kawasaki disease (KD) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) have been reported following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination; however, the association between COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of developing KD/MIS-C has not yet been established. Methods: We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using a large-linked database that connects the COVID-19 immunization registry with nationwide claims data. We identified individuals aged < 18 years who received their initial COVID-19 vaccination and had a KD/MIS-C diagnosis with a prescription for intravenous immunoglobulin or corticosteroids between October 18, 2021, and April 15, 2023. The observation period was set as 240 days from the date of the COVID-19 vaccination. The risk window was 60 days after vaccination, with the remaining observation period serving as the control window. The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in the risk versus control windows were estimated using the conditional Poisson regression model. We further analyzed the vaccine doses and types for secondary analysis. We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by sex, age, comorbidities, and other conditions and sensitivity analyses by varying the length of the risk window and outcome definition. Results: Among 2,369,490 individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccination, 12 cases of KD/MIS-C were identified, which included five and seven patients in the risk and control windows, respectively. There was no increased risk of KD/MIS-C within the 60-day period of vaccination (IRR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.17–1.60). Secondary subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed no significant increase in the risk of KD/MIS-C after COVID-19 vaccination, which is consistent with the results of the main analysis. Conclusion The results of this nationwide study suggest that the risk of developing KD/MIS-C did not increase after COVID-19 vaccination. However, owing to the lack of a sufficient number of cases, future studies utilizing multinational long-term follow-up databases should be conducted. Considering the increasing incidence of KD/MIS-C and the limited understanding of its precise biological mechanisms, additional research on KD/MIS-C is warranted.

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.

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.

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.

Background: Rare cases of Kawasaki disease (KD) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) have been reported following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination; however, the association between COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of developing KD/MIS-C has not yet been established. Methods: We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using a large-linked database that connects the COVID-19 immunization registry with nationwide claims data. We identified individuals aged < 18 years who received their initial COVID-19 vaccination and had a KD/MIS-C diagnosis with a prescription for intravenous immunoglobulin or corticosteroids between October 18, 2021, and April 15, 2023. The observation period was set as 240 days from the date of the COVID-19 vaccination. The risk window was 60 days after vaccination, with the remaining observation period serving as the control window. The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in the risk versus control windows were estimated using the conditional Poisson regression model. We further analyzed the vaccine doses and types for secondary analysis. We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by sex, age, comorbidities, and other conditions and sensitivity analyses by varying the length of the risk window and outcome definition. Results: Among 2,369,490 individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccination, 12 cases of KD/MIS-C were identified, which included five and seven patients in the risk and control windows, respectively. There was no increased risk of KD/MIS-C within the 60-day period of vaccination (IRR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.17–1.60). Secondary subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed no significant increase in the risk of KD/MIS-C after COVID-19 vaccination, which is consistent with the results of the main analysis. Conclusion The results of this nationwide study suggest that the risk of developing KD/MIS-C did not increase after COVID-19 vaccination. However, owing to the lack of a sufficient number of cases, future studies utilizing multinational long-term follow-up databases should be conducted. Considering the increasing incidence of KD/MIS-C and the limited understanding of its precise biological mechanisms, additional research on KD/MIS-C is warranted.