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: 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.

Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer is known for its potential to recur many years after initial treatment. Although most recurrences occur within the first 5–10 years, late recurrence, especially beyond 15 years of age, is rare and isolated cutaneous recurrence is even less frequently reported. However, awareness of the possibility of extremely late and subtle local recurrences in patients with HR+ breast cancer has gradually increased over time. Clinicians should remain vigilant for atypical cutaneous changes near previous surgical sites, even decades after the initial treatment, and consider biopsy in the absence of classic signs of recurrence. We report the case of a 56-year-old woman who experienced an isolated cutaneous recurrence nearly 20 years after mastectomy for HR+ breast cancer, presenting with only faint erythema.

Purpose: With neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) broadening the surgical indication for advanced pancreatic cancer, the growing use of robotic platforms in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) necessitates the evaluation of its feasibility in advanced pancreatic cancer patients who have undergone NAT. Methods: We compared clinicopathological outcomes of advanced pancreatic cancer patients who received either robotassisted or open PD after NAT at a tertiary hospital from 2015 to 2023. Propensity score matching was performed based on age, sex, and TNM staging. Results: Among 223 patients who received conversion surgery after NAT, 42 open PD and 14 robot-assisted PD patients were matched in a 3:1 ratio. There was a trend of shorter hospital stays (11.4 days vs. 9.8 days, P = 0.218) and less severe postoperative complications (21.4% vs. 7.1%; P = 0.227) in the robot-assisted PD group. Lymph node (LN) yield, LN metastasis rate, and R0 resection rates were similar between the 2 groups. The overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between the 2 groups were comparable (5-year OS rate: 55.7% vs. 72.7%, P = 0.264; 5-year DFS rate: 54.4% vs.58.4%, P = 0.759). Conclusion Robot-assisted PD offers comparable short-term and long-term outcomes to open PD, even in patients undergoing conversion surgery after NAT.

Purpose: This study was conducted to develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm that can diagnose cervical foraminal stenosis using oblique radiographs and evaluate its accuracy. Materials and Methods: A total of 997 patients who underwent cervical MRI and cervical oblique radiographs within a 3-month interval were included. Oblique radiographs were labeled as “foraminal stenosis” or “no foraminal stenosis” according to whether foraminal stenosis was present in the C2–T1 levels based on MRI evaluation as ground truth. The CNN model involved data augmentation, image preprocessing, and transfer learning using DenseNet161. Visualization of the location of the CNN model was performed using gradient-weight class activation mapping (Grad-CAM). Results: The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve based on DenseNet161 was 0.889 (95% confidence interval, 0.851–0.927). The F1 score, accuracy, precision, and recall were 88.5%, 84.6%, 88.1%, and 88.5%, respectively.The accuracy of the proposed CNN model was significantly higher than that of two orthopedic surgeons (64.0%, p<0.001; 58.0%, p<0.001). Grad-CAM analysis demonstrated that the CNN model most frequently focused on the foramen location for the determination of foraminal stenosis, although disc space was also frequently taken into consideration. Conclusion A CNN algorithm that can detect neural foraminal stenosis in cervical oblique radiographs was developed. The AUC, F1 score, and accuracy were 0.889, 88.5%, and 84.6%, respectively. With the current CNN model, cervical oblique radiography could be a more effective screening tool for neural foraminal stenosis.