Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Purpose: Recent development in perioperative treatment of resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changed the landscape of early lung cancer management. The ADAURA trial has demonstrated the efficacy of adjuvant osimertinib treatment in resectable NSCLC patients; however, studies are required to show which subgroup of patients are at a high risk of relapse and require adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. This study evaluated risk factors for postoperative relapse among patients who underwent complete resection. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from the Korean Association for Lung Cancer Registry (KALC-R), a database created using a retrospective sampling survey by the Korean Central Cancer Registry (KCCR) and the Lung Cancer Registration Committee. Results: A total of 3,176 patients who underwent curative resection was evaluated. The mean observation time was approximately 35.4 months. Among stage I to IIIA NSCLC patients, the EGFR-mutant subgroup included 867 patients, and 75.2%, 11.2%, and 11.8% were classified as stage I, stage II, and stage III, respectively. Within the EGFR-mutant subgroup, 44 (5.1%) and 121 (14.0%) patients showed early and late recurrence, respectively. Multivariate analysis on association with postoperative relapse among the EGFR-mutant subgroup showed that age, pathologic N and TNM stages, pleural invasion status, and surgery type were independent significant factors. Conclusion Among the population that underwent complete resection for early NSCLC with EGFR mutation, patients with advanced stage, pleural invasion, or limited resection are more likely to show postoperative relapse.

Purpose: Recent development in perioperative treatment of resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changed the landscape of early lung cancer management. The ADAURA trial has demonstrated the efficacy of adjuvant osimertinib treatment in resectable NSCLC patients; however, studies are required to show which subgroup of patients are at a high risk of relapse and require adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. This study evaluated risk factors for postoperative relapse among patients who underwent complete resection. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from the Korean Association for Lung Cancer Registry (KALC-R), a database created using a retrospective sampling survey by the Korean Central Cancer Registry (KCCR) and the Lung Cancer Registration Committee. Results: A total of 3,176 patients who underwent curative resection was evaluated. The mean observation time was approximately 35.4 months. Among stage I to IIIA NSCLC patients, the EGFR-mutant subgroup included 867 patients, and 75.2%, 11.2%, and 11.8% were classified as stage I, stage II, and stage III, respectively. Within the EGFR-mutant subgroup, 44 (5.1%) and 121 (14.0%) patients showed early and late recurrence, respectively. Multivariate analysis on association with postoperative relapse among the EGFR-mutant subgroup showed that age, pathologic N and TNM stages, pleural invasion status, and surgery type were independent significant factors. Conclusion Among the population that underwent complete resection for early NSCLC with EGFR mutation, patients with advanced stage, pleural invasion, or limited resection are more likely to show postoperative relapse.

Purpose: Recent development in perioperative treatment of resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changed the landscape of early lung cancer management. The ADAURA trial has demonstrated the efficacy of adjuvant osimertinib treatment in resectable NSCLC patients; however, studies are required to show which subgroup of patients are at a high risk of relapse and require adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. This study evaluated risk factors for postoperative relapse among patients who underwent complete resection. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from the Korean Association for Lung Cancer Registry (KALC-R), a database created using a retrospective sampling survey by the Korean Central Cancer Registry (KCCR) and the Lung Cancer Registration Committee. Results: A total of 3,176 patients who underwent curative resection was evaluated. The mean observation time was approximately 35.4 months. Among stage I to IIIA NSCLC patients, the EGFR-mutant subgroup included 867 patients, and 75.2%, 11.2%, and 11.8% were classified as stage I, stage II, and stage III, respectively. Within the EGFR-mutant subgroup, 44 (5.1%) and 121 (14.0%) patients showed early and late recurrence, respectively. Multivariate analysis on association with postoperative relapse among the EGFR-mutant subgroup showed that age, pathologic N and TNM stages, pleural invasion status, and surgery type were independent significant factors. Conclusion Among the population that underwent complete resection for early NSCLC with EGFR mutation, patients with advanced stage, pleural invasion, or limited resection are more likely to show postoperative relapse.

Background/Aims: The SAMe-TT2R2 score is used for assessing anticoagulation control (AC) quality with warfarin. However, it is hard to apply SAMe-TT2R2 score in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), because it has not been proven in those populations. This study aimed to validate the SAMe-TT2R2 score in Asian patients with AF and suggest a modified SAMe- TT2R2 score for this population. Methods: We analyzed 710 Korean patients with AF who were using warfarin. The AC quality was assessed as the mean time in therapeutic range (TTR). Each component of SAMe-TT2R2 score was evaluated for the relationship with AC. Further clinical factors that predict AC were analyzed. Identified factors were re-assorted and constructed as SA2Me-TTR scoring system. Results: Of the components of the SAMe-TT2R2 score, female, age, and rhythm control were associated with AC. Heart failure and renal insufficiency were newly identified factors associated with AC. The modified SA2Me-TTR score was reconstructed with the relevant risk factors (S, female gender, 1 point; A, age < 60 yr, 2 points; Me, medical history of heart failure, 1 point; T, treatment for rhythm control, 1 point; T, history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, 1 point; R, renal insufficiency, 1 point). The modified SA2Me-TTR score demonstrated an excellent relationship with the grading of AC. The modified SA2Me-TTR score ≤ 1 identified patients with good AC (hazard ratio 2.46, 95% CI 1.75–3.47). Conclusions The modified SA2Me-TTR score was useful for guiding oral anticoagulants selection in Asian patients with AF.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

Purpose: This study investigated the causative microorganisms, antibiotic susceptibility, and risk factors of infectious keratitis over the past 10 years. Methods: Data from patients with infectious keratitis who underwent microbial culture tests from 2012 to 2021, obtained from anonymized data systems, were analyzed. Microbial culture results and antibiotic susceptibility profiles were examined. A retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with infectious keratitis during the same period was conducted to investigate the clinical characteristics and risk factors. Results: Data from 1,837 cases of infectious keratitis were extracted from anonymized records. The culture positive rate among patients was 46.0% (1,137/2,474), with coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) being the most common causative organism (27.8%). Increased resistance to cefazolin and cefotaxime was observed in gram-negative bacteria, while there were no significant temporal changes in quinolone resistance in gram-positive or negative bacteria. A retrospective medical record analysis of 288 cases revealed that older patients, as well as those with an initial corrected visual acuity < 0.1, a history of ocular surgery, pre-existing ocular conditions, prior steroid eye drops, or glaucoma eye drops, had significantly higher rates of culture positivity. Multivariate analysis identified risk factors for severe keratitis requiring surgical intervention as a symptom-to-presentation period of 7 days or longer (p = 0.048) and pre-existing ocular conditions (p = 0.040). Conclusions CoNS was the most common microorganism causing infectious keratitis over the past decade. There has been an increase in resistance to cephalosporin antibiotics among gram-negative bacteria. Patients with pre-existing ocular conditions may require surgical intervention, so infectious keratitis in these patients requires greater attention.