Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Background: and Purpose Subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) are gaining attention as a self-perceived symptom for cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but there are few suitable tools for assessing SCCs in PD. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire for assessing SCCs in PD, called the Subjective Cognitive Complaints Questionnaire for Parkinson’s Disease (SCCQ-PD). Methods: The SCCQ-PD consists of 12 yeso questions on subjective cognitive function, and the questionnaire was completed by patients with PD (score-P) and their caregivers (score-C). The cognitive function of patients was examined using comprehensive neuropsychological tests. Results: This study included 73 patients (38 cognitively normal, 25 with mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and 10 demented) and their caregivers. Score-P and score-C had excellent reliability (Kuder-Richardson formula 20 coefficients of 0.893 and 0.931, respectively), and the scores exhibited a strong intercorrelation. Both score-P and score-C were negatively correlated with cognitive performance, and both were excellent in discriminating demented patients from those with normal cognition or MCI (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 and 0.88, respectively). Conclusions The SCCQ-PD is a reliable tool for assessing SCCs in patients with PD. SCCs measured using the SCCQ-PD are correlated with objective cognitive decline and useful for discriminating demented patients from nondemented patients.

No abstract available.
Chorea ; Paraneoplastic Syndromes ; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

No abstract available.
Dopamine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins ; Dopamine ; Methylphenidate ; Parkinsonian Disorders

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to measure the efficacy of different tooth-brushing methods for removing plaque in Korea. METHODS: This study was conducted with the approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Seoul National University School of Dentistry (S-D20180021). Thirty participants aged between 19 and 30 years, who did not have periodontal disease, were enrolled in this observational study. Participants were given the same type of toothbrush and toothpaste and asked to brush their teeth as they usually would. During brushing, participants were recorded with a camcorder that was attached to a mirror. Participants were aware they were being recorded. After they had finished brushing their teeth, a dental plaque staining and oral plaque index (PI) examination was performed. The PI score was measured using the Turesky modified Quigley Hein Index. Brushing methods were classified as rolling, horizontal, vertical, circling, and oblique. Skipped surfaces were recorded separately. Following this, statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. RESULTS: Most surfaces of the mouth were skipped. The most commonly used brushing method was the circling method, followed by the vertical, horizontal, rolling, and oblique methods. The most frequently used method on the vestibular surface was circling, with 52.92% of the oral surface skipped. The oblique brushing method had the lowest mean PI score with a mean±SD of 1.73±0.82. The mean PI score of the skipped surfaces was the highest with a mean±SD of 2.52±0.81. We also analyzed the linear mixed model considering the different lengths of time spent brushing. Both the brushing method used and the time spent brushing had a significant effect on the PI score, but no interactions between these were observed. In areas where a horizontal brushing method had been used, the PI score was significantly decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the horizontal brushing method is an efficient tooth-brushing method compared to the other methods. Additionally, tooth-brushing for more than 10 seconds on 3 to 4 teeth area was effective in removing dental biofilm.
Biofilms ; Dental Plaque Index ; Dental Plaque ; Dentistry ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Humans ; Korea ; Methods ; Mouth ; Observational Study ; Oral Hygiene ; Periodontal Diseases ; Seoul ; Tooth ; Toothpastes ; Video Recording

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the intake of semi-solid yogurt and periodontitis in Korean adults using a national database. METHODS: The data analyzed in this study are a subset of the sixth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted in 2015 by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The sample size for this study was 4,727. We collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, oral health-related variables, oral and general health status, and intake of semi-solid yogurt. Semi-solid yogurt intake (YI) was calculated by multiplying the frequency of YI over the previous week by the average intake per serving. We assessed periodontal conditions using the Community Periodontal Index (CPI) and defined periodontitis as a CPI score ≥3. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed after adjusting for sociodemographic variables, and oral and general health behaviors and status. RESULTS: The mean weekly YI among those without periodontitis (1.03±0.06 cups) was significantly higher than among those with periodontitis (0.77±0.08 cups) (P<0.001). Individuals who consumed more than 2 cups of yogurt per day were 76% less likely to have periodontitis than those who consumed less than 1 cup of yogurt per week after adjusting for all covariates (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.10–0.60). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant association between increased intake of semi-solid yogurt and periodontal health. We therefore recommend daily consumption of semi-solid yogurt as a probiotic to improve periodontal health. Further longitudinal studies are required to elucidate plausible mechanisms through which probiotics impact periodontal disease, considering both periodontal pathogens and clinical periodontal parameters.
Adult ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.) ; Health Behavior ; Humans ; Korea ; Logistic Models ; Longitudinal Studies ; Nutrition Surveys ; Periodontal Diseases ; Periodontal Index ; Periodontitis ; Probiotics ; Sample Size ; Yogurt