Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

Objective: Depression involves mood-related behavioral changes typically monitored through subjective reports, which are limited by recall bias and low temporal resolution. Digital mental health tools offer objective, continuous monitoring, but prior studies have focused on outpatients subject to environmental variability. In this preliminary feasibility study, we examined psychiatric inpatients in a controlled setting to assess associations between behavioral regularity and depression severity, highlighting the clinical potential of digital phenotyping. Methods: Thirty-five adults from a closed psychiatric ward were recruited, and data from 10 inpatients with ≥7 days of valid monitoring were analyzed. Depression severity was assessed weekly using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and Dysfunctional Self-focus Attributes Scale, yielding 18 samples. Hourly accelerometer and location data from wearable devices and ward sensors were processed to generate digital phenotypes—interdaily stability (IS), intradaily variability (IV), ratio of IS to IV (ISV), entropy (EN), and normalized entropy (NE)—segmented into daytime and nighttime. Linear mixed models assessed group differences, and correlation and multiple regression examined associations with depression. Results: Patients with asymptomatic/mild depression showed significantly higher IS_day and ISV_day, and lower EN_night, and NE_night (all p<0.05). These four features correlated with HAMD after false discovery rate (all p<0.05) correction. A regression model including IS_day and NE_night explained 60.6% of HAMD variance (p<0.05). Conclusion Digital monitoring provides an objective and continuous method to assess depression severity. By capturing macro- and micro-level movement regularity across day and night in an inpatient environment, this approach offers practical relevance for psychiatric care. However, results should be considered preliminary due to the limited sample size.

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.

Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

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.