Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the potential role of copine-1 (CPNE1), a calcium-dependent membrane-binding protein encoded by the CPNE1 gene, in colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite previous research on the involvement of copine family members in various solid tumors, the specific role of CPNE1 in CRC remains poorly understood. Methods: We conducted clinicopathological analysis and functional studies to explore the impact of CPNE1 in human CRC.We examined the expression levels of CPNE1 in CRC patients and correlated it with invasive depth, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, lymphatic invasion, and TNM stage. Additionally, we performed experiments to assess the functional consequences of CPNE1 knockdown in CRC cells, including proliferation, colony formation, migration, invasion, and the expression of key regulators involved in the cell cycle and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Furthermore, we evaluated the effects of CPNE1 knockdown on tumor growth using a xenograft mouse model. Results: High expression of CPNE1 was significantly associated with advanced tumor features in CRC patients. CPNE1 knockdown in CRC cells led to impaired abilities in proliferation, colony formation, migration, and invasion. Furthermore, CPNE1 silencing resulted in the suppression of protein expression related to the cell cycle and EMT. In the xenograft mouse model, CPNE1 knockdown inhibited tumor growth. Conclusion CPNE1 plays a crucial role in promoting tumorigenesis and metastasis in human CRC. By regulating the cell cycle and EMT, CPNE1 influences critical cellular processes at the membrane-cytoplasm interface. These results provide valuable insights into the potential development of novel therapeutic strategies for CRC targeting CPNE1.

Objectives: . We aimed to assess the genetic differences between cases of early-stage tongue cancer that were positive or negative for lymph node metastasis. Methods: . In total, 35 cases of tongue cancer with RNA sequencing data were enrolled in this study. The gene expression profile of the following two groups was compared: N0 group (T stage 1 or 2 with N0 stage) and N+ group (T stage 1 or 2 with N+ stage). Using the R and limma packages in the Bioconductor program, we extracted the differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Gene ontology and pathway enrichment analysis were performed using the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integration Discovery (DAVID) online tool. Immune cell infiltration was analyzed using the CIBERSORT online program. Immunochemical staining of the cancer tissue was evaluated and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data were analyzed to validate the identified DEGs. Results: . No significant differences were found in the infiltration of 22 types of immune cells. Among a total of 51 identified DEGs, 14 genes were significantly upregulated, while 37 genes were significantly downregulated (P<0.01; fold change >2). Pathway analysis revealed significant associations with the arachidonic acid metabolism-related pathway, calcium signaling, and the muscle contraction pathway. The following DEGs were the most significantly different between the two groups: DEFB4A, SPRR2B, DEFB103B, SPRR2G, DEFB4B, and FAM25A. TCGA data showed that DEFB4A and DEFB103B were more highly expressed in the N0 group than in the N+ group, although the difference did not achieve statistical significance. Immunochemical staining of cancer tissue revealed significantly higher expression of defensin in the N0 group. Conclusions . Defensin (DEFB4A, DEFB103B, DEFB4B) may be a novel biomarker for early regional metastasis in T1/2 tongue cancer.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is reported less frequently in adults than in children. The most common site of involvement in adults is the bone, accounting for 30-50% of cases. The gastrointestinal tract is very rare, accounting for approximately 2%. We present a case of Langerhans cell histiocytosis that simultaneously invaded multiple organs, including the stomach and colon, in an adult. A 37-year-old woman with no underlying disease complained of chest discomfort and a palpable right submandibular mass. A right Level II neck mass and mediastinal LN enlargement were confirmed on the pharynx and chest CT scan. Multiple subepithelial masses with central ulceration and erosion were observed in the corpus and fundus on the esophagogastroduodenoscopy and in the right colon on the colonoscopy. The histopathology findings were the same in each tissue biopsied from the stomach, colon, and right neck lymph nodes. Langerhans cells with classical reniform nuclei and prominent eosinophils invaded the normal glands, and S100 and CD1a were positive in the immunohistochemical stain. Gastrointestinal involvement of LCH in adults is rare, asymptomatic,and can involve multiple digestive organs simultaneously, so upper endoscopy and colonoscopy should be considered for a diagnosis.

Purpose: There have been few reports on comparison between sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy in Korean metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We sought to analyze the treatment trends of metastatic ccRCC by comparing the effects and adverse events of sunitinib and pazopanib. Materials and Methods: Data of 357 metastatic RCC patients who received the sunitinib or pazopanib as the first-line targeted therapy from the Daegyeong Oncology Study Group database was obtained and analyzed. Among these patients, patients who only clear cell type was confirmed after needle biopsy or nephrectomy were included, and patients who underwent target therapy for less than 3 months were excluded. Results: Of 251 patients who met the inclusion criteria, sunitinib and pazopanib group were identified in 156 (62%) and 95 patients (38%), respectively. Pazopanib group was older (66 years vs. 61 years, p=0.001) and more symptomatic (65% vs. 52%, p=0.037) and had more patients with Karnofsky performance status <80 (20% vs. 11%, p=0.048) and fewer number of organ metastases (p=0.004) compared to sunitinib group. There was no significant difference in disease control rate (88.5% vs. 87.3%, p=0.744), the median progression-free survival (19 months vs. 15 months, p=0.444) and overall survival (25 months vs. 19 months, p=0.721) between sunitinib and pazopanib. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events with sunitinib and pazopanib were anemia (5%) and hand-foot syndrome (3%), respectively. There was no significant difference between sunitinib and pazopanib in number of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events (15% vs. 11%, p=0.275). However, there were more patients who discontinued treatment due to only adverse events in sunitinib group compared to pazopanib group (12% vs. 3%, p=0.020). Conclusions In Korean metastatic ccRCC, pazopanib tended to be used in patients with poorer health status compared to sunitinib. Sunitinib and pazopanib had no significant difference in treatment effect and survival, but pazopanib had more tolerable adverse events.

In this review of the most recent applications of deep learning to ultrasound imaging, the architectures of deep learning networks are briefly explained for the medical imaging applications of classification, detection, segmentation, and generation. Ultrasonography applications for image processing and diagnosis are then reviewed and summarized, along with some representative imaging studies of the breast, thyroid, heart, kidney, liver, and fetal head. Efforts towards workflow enhancement are also reviewed, with an emphasis on view recognition, scanning guide, image quality assessment, and quantification and measurement. Finally some future prospects are presented regarding image quality enhancement, diagnostic support, and improvements in workflow efficiency, along with remarks on hurdles, benefits, and necessary collaborations.