Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Background: The diagnostic accuracy of preoperative radiologic findings in predicting the tumor characteristics and clinical outcomes of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) was evaluated across all risk groups. Methods: In total, 939 PTMC patients, comprising both low-risk and non-low-risk groups, who underwent surgery were enrolled. The preoperative tumor size and lymph node metastasis (LNM) were evaluated by ultrasonography within 6 months before surgery and compared with the postoperative pathologic findings. Discrepancies between the preoperative and postoperative tumor sizes were analyzed, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Results: The agreement rate between radiological and pathological tumor size was approximately 60%. Significant discrepancies were noted, including an increase in tumor size in 24.3% of cases. Notably, in 10.8% of patients, the postoperative tumor size exceeded 1 cm, despite being initially classified as 0.5 to 1.0 cm based on preoperative imaging. A postoperative tumor size >1 cm was associated with aggressive pathologic factors such as multiplicity, microscopic extrathyroidal extension, and LNM, as well as a higher risk of distant metastasis. In 30.1% of patients, LNM was diagnosed after surgery despite not being suspected before the procedure. This group was characterized by smaller metastatic foci and lower risks of distant metastasis or recurrence than patients with LNM detected both before and after surgery. Conclusion Among all risk groups of PTMCs, a subset showed an increase in tumor size, reaching 1 cm after surgery. These cases require special consideration due to their association with adverse clinical outcomes, including an elevated risk of distant metastasis.

Purpose: The regions where patients diagnosed with prostate cancer by biopsy receive prostatectomy are divided into national hub and regional hubs, and to confirm the change in the role of regional hubs compared to national hub. Materials and Methods: Data from July 2013 to June 2017 encompassing 218,155 patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with prostate cancer were analyzed using the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. The degree of patient outflow was assessed by dividing the regional diagnosis-to-surgery ratio with the national ratio for each year. Based on this ratio, national and regional hubs were determined. Results: Seoul consistently maintained a patient influx with a ratio above 1.6. Busan and Gyeonggi consistently exceeded 0.9, while Ulsan and Daegu steadily increased, exceeding 1.0 between 2015 and 2016. Jeonnam province also consistently maintained the ratio above 0.7. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon remained below 0.5, indicative of substantial patient outflows, whereas Gwangju and Gyeongbuk had the highest patient outflows with ratios below 0.15. Therefore, Seoul was designated as a national hub, whereas Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam were classified as regional hubs. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon were the dominant outflow areas, while Gwangju and Gyeongbuk were the highest outflow areas. Conclusions Seoul, as the national hub for prostate cancer surgery, operated on 1.76 times more patients than any other region during 2013–2017. Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam functioned as regional hubs, but approximately 10%–20% of patients sought treatment at national hubs.