Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Purpose: Renal tumors account for approximately 7% of all childhood cancers. These include Wilms tumor (WT), clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), malignant rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (MRTK), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) and other rare tumors. We investigated the epidemiology of pediatric renal tumors in Korea. Materials and Methods: From January 2001 to December 2015, data of pediatric patients (0–18 years) newly-diagnosed with renal tumors at 26 hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among 439 patients (male, 240), the most common tumor was WT (n=342, 77.9%), followed by RCC (n=36, 8.2%), CCSK (n=24, 5.5%), MRTK (n=16, 3.6%), CMN (n=12, 2.7%), and others (n=9, 2.1%). Median age at diagnosis was 27.1 months (range 0-225.5) and median follow-up duration was 88.5 months (range 0-211.6). Overall, 32 patients died, of whom 17, 11, 1, and 3 died of relapse, progressive disease, second malignant neoplasm, and treatment-related mortality. Five-year overall survival and event free survival were 97.2% and 84.8% in WT, 90.6% and 82.1% in RCC, 81.1% and 63.6% in CCSK, 60.3% and 56.2% in MRTK, and 100% and 91.7% in CMN, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion The pediatric renal tumor types in Korea are similar to those previously reported in other countries. WT accounted for a large proportion and survival was excellent. Non-Wilms renal tumors included a variety of tumors and showed inferior outcome, especially MRTK. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the treatment and analyze the genetic characteristics of pediatric renal tumors in Korea.

Objective: Dual trigger is used to induce final oocyte maturation during the process of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, yet yielding controversial results. Also, there are yet no data regarding the effect of the dosage of the dual trigger on clinical outcomes. Based on the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria, this study aimed to determine the clinical difference of a single bolus versus two boluses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in POSEIDON group IV patients using dual trigger. Methods: We screened a total of 1,256 patients who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles who met the POSEIDON group IV criteria. Six hundred and twenty-nine patients received one bolus of GnRHa, and 627 patients were given two boluses. All patients received the same dose of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin during the dual trigger cycle. Results: Metaphase II oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate and clinical pregnancy rate did not differ between the two groups. However, a lower percentage of at least one top-quality embryo transfer (34.3% vs. 26.0%, P=0.001) in the two bolus-GnRHa group was noted. Conclusion A double bolus of GnRHa did not show superior clinical results compared to a single bolus of GnRHa in the dual trigger IVF cycle. Therefore, GnRHa doses for use should be decided based on individual clinical situations considering cost-effectiveness and patient compliance, but further investigation will be needed.

Purpose: Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor (ATRT) is a highly aggressive malignancy with peak incidence in children aged less than 3 years. Standard treatment for central nervous system ATRT in children under the age of 3 years have not been established yet. The objective of this study was to analyze characteristics and clinical outcomes of ATRT in children aged less than 3 years. Materials and Methods: A search of medical records from seven centers was performed between January 2005 and December 2016. Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 90 months, 27 patients (64.3%) showed at least one episode of disease progression (PD). The first date of PD was at 160 days after diagnosis. The 1- and 3-year progression-free survivals (PFS) were 51.2% and 28.5%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall survivals were 61.9% and 38.1%, respectively. The 3-year PFS was improved from 0% in pre-2011 to 47.4% in post-2011. Excluding one patient who did not receive any further therapy after surgery, 27 patients died due to PD (n=21), treatment-related toxicity (n=5), or unknown cause (n=1). In univariate analysis, factors associated with higher 3-year PFS were no metastases, diagnosis after 2011, early adjuvant radiotherapy, and high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). In multivariate analysis, the use of HDCT and adjuvant radiotherapy remained significant prognostic factors for PFS (both p < 0.01). Conclusion Aggressive therapy including early adjuvant radiotherapy and HDCT could be considered to improve outcomes of ATRT in children under the age of 3 years.

Purpose: Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor (ATRT) is a highly aggressive malignancy with peak incidence in children aged less than 3 years. Standard treatment for central nervous system ATRT in children under the age of 3 years have not been established yet. The objective of this study was to analyze characteristics and clinical outcomes of ATRT in children aged less than 3 years. Materials and Methods: A search of medical records from seven centers was performed between January 2005 and December 2016. Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 90 months, 27 patients (64.3%) showed at least one episode of disease progression (PD). The first date of PD was at 160 days after diagnosis. The 1- and 3-year progression-free survivals (PFS) were 51.2% and 28.5%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall survivals were 61.9% and 38.1%, respectively. The 3-year PFS was improved from 0% in pre-2011 to 47.4% in post-2011. Excluding one patient who did not receive any further therapy after surgery, 27 patients died due to PD (n=21), treatment-related toxicity (n=5), or unknown cause (n=1). In univariate analysis, factors associated with higher 3-year PFS were no metastases, diagnosis after 2011, early adjuvant radiotherapy, and high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). In multivariate analysis, the use of HDCT and adjuvant radiotherapy remained significant prognostic factors for PFS (both p < 0.01). Conclusion Aggressive therapy including early adjuvant radiotherapy and HDCT could be considered to improve outcomes of ATRT in children under the age of 3 years.

Purpose: Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at chromosomes 1p and 16q is a poor prognostic factor infavorable histology Wilms tumor (FHWT). This study investigated the prevalence of LOH at1p and 16q and evaluated its prognostic value in Korean children with FHWT. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 101 FHWT patients who were diagnosed between 1996 and 2016 in KoreanSociety of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Group hospitals. Using paraffin-embedded kidneytissue samples sent from each center, we reviewed LOH at 1p and 16q in each patient andassessed the prognostic value of LOH status for clinical parameters affecting event-freesurvival (EFS). Results: Of the 101 patients, 12 (11.9%) experienced recurrence; the 3-year EFS was 87.6%. LOHat 1p or 16q was detected in 19 patients (18.8%), with five having LOH at both 1q and 16q.The frequency of LOH at 1p was higher among younger patients (p=0.049), but there wasno difference in LOH prevalence according to tumor stage. In the multivariate analysis, LOHat 16q was a significant negative prognostic factor affecting EFS (3-year EFS, 73.7% vs.91.1%; hazard ratio, 3.95; p=0.037), whereas LOH at 1p was not (p=0.786). Conclusion LOH at 16q was a significant negative prognostic factor affecting outcome in Korean pediatricFHWT patients. Due to the small sample size of this study, large-scale multicenter trialsare warranted to investigate the prognostic value of LOH at 1p and 16q in Korean childrenwith FHWT.