Purpose: Older cancer patients face unique challenges due to age-related physiological changes, increasing their vulnerability to treatment-related toxicities. Geriatric assessment (GA) is a validated tool for optimizing care, yet there is no consensus on integrating geriatric interventions into oncology. This study evaluates the feasibility of a tailored onco-geriatric intervention model incorporating the KG-7 screening tool. Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 30 patients aged ≥ 70 years with solid tumors undergoing adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy. Patients scoring ≤ 5 of KG-7 were eligible. Tailored interventions incorporating KG-7 included polypharmacy, functional status, mobility, nutrition, cognition, emotional well-being, insomnia, social support, and medical problem. KG-7, GA, and quality of life (QoL) were followed at 12 weeks. Results: Participants (median age, 79.5 years) had colon (43.3%), pancreatic (23.3%), or gastric cancer (23.3%). At baseline, most patients showed independent activities of daily living (100%)/instrumental activities of daily living (90%). However, 93.3% had abnormal GA. Particularly, 86.7% were either malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. The most frequently identified intervention needs included polypharmacy (70.0%), nutritional support (60.0%), and emotional well-being (50.0%) with high adherence (100.0%, 88.9%, and 46.7%, respectively). At 12 weeks, KG-7 scores improved in 43.8% of patients, and 69.2% of GA domains were improved. QoL analysis revealed modest improvement in Global Health Status (mean difference, 6.3; p=0.176). One-year survival rates were 92.3% and 79.4% for adjuvant and palliative groups, respectively. Conclusion The onco-geriatric intervention model incorporating KG-7 demonstrated high feasibility and potential to enhance clinical outcomes. Future studies should validate this approach in randomized trials to optimize care for older cancer patients.

Background: Older patients aged ≥75 years are underrepresented in major statin trials, leaving the optimal statin intensity after acute ischemic stroke (AIS) undefined. We aimed to compare functional outcomes and short-term safety between high-intensity statin therapy (HIST) and moderate-intensity statin therapy (MIST) in patients aged ≥75 years with AIS or transient ischemic attack. Methods: Using a prospective stroke registry at a single tertiary center (2019–2022), we retrospectively analyzed 337 patients aged ≥75 years with AIS or transient ischemic attack who maintained statin therapy for 3 months (HIST n=117; MIST n=220). The primary outcome was a favorable 3-month functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2). Secondary outcomes included stroke recurrence, adverse effects, and statin discontinuation. Multivariable logistic regression with pre-specified sensitivity analyses was performed. Results: Favorable outcomes at 3 months were more frequent with HIST (70.9% vs. 55.9%; p=0.010). After multivariable adjustment, HIST was independently associated with a favorable outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–3.53), consistent across sensitivity analyses: per-protocol (aOR=3.48, 95% CI 1.97–6.17) and atrial fibrillation-adjusted (aOR=2.21, 95% CI 1.26–3.89). No significant differences were observed in statin discontinuation, stroke recurrence, or adverse effects. Conclusion In older patients with AIS, HIST was independently associated with better functional outcomes without evidence of increased harm, broadly consistent with current guideline recommendations for HIST when tolerated. Prospective studies are needed to confirm a causal relationship.

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–ultralow breast cancer among cases initially classified as HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 0 and assess interobserver variability in interpreting low-level HER2 expression. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, all invasive breast cancer cases diagnosed between January and December 2022 across 10 Korean institutions were retrieved. Institutional pathologists reexamined HER2 IHC slides originally reported as IHC 0 according to the 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines and reclassified them as HER2-null (0), HER2-ultralow (0+), or HER2-low (1+). Slides from 10% of HER2-null and HER2-ultralow cases were digitized for central review and independently assessed by two pathologists, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Results: Among 8,026 cases, 2,836 cases (35.5%) were initially reported as IHC 0. Upon re-review, 1,673 (59.0%), 1,139 (40.2%), and 24 (0.8%) cases were reclassified as HER2-null, HER2-ultralow, and HER2-low, respectively. The prevalence of HER2-ultralow breast cancer varied considerably across institutions (23.7%–78.1%). Central review of 268 digitized cases showed concordance in 193 cases (72.0%). Among the 75 discordant cases, 54 tumors (72.0%) were upgraded from HER2-null to HER2-ultralow, and 18 (24.0%) tumors were upgraded from HER2-ultralow to HER2-low. Furthermore, two tumors (2.7%) were downgraded from HER2-ultralow to HER2-null. Conclusions: Approximately 40% of cases initially categorized as IHC 0 were reclassified as HER2-ultralow. The substantial inter-institutional variability observed in interpreting low-level HER2 expression highlights the need for standardized training and quality assurance to ensure accurate identification of patients eligible for HER2-targeted antibody–drug conjugates.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used for over a century and has been demonstrated to be effective in treating patients with various allergic diseases. AIT allergens can be administered through various routes, including subcutaneous, sublingual, intralymphatic, oral, or epicutaneous routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has recently gained clinical interest, and it is considered an alternative treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma. This review provides an overview of the current evidence-based studies that address the use of SLIT for treating AR, including (1) mechanisms of action, (2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, (3) the current available SLIT products in Korea, and (4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. Finally, this guideline aims to provide the clinician with practical considerations for SLIT.