Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate long-term treatment outcomes in patients with localized gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma treated with radiotherapy (RT). Materials and Methods: A total of 229 patients who received RT in 10 tertiary hospitals between 2010 and 2019 were included in this multicenter analysis. Response after RT was based on esophagogastroduodenoscopy after RT. Locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: After a median follow-up time of 93.2 months, 5-year LRFS, DFS, and OS rates were 92.8%, 90.4%, and 96.1%, respectively. LRFS, DFS, and OS rates at 10 years were 90.3%, 87.7%, and 92.8%, respectively. Of 229 patients, 228 patients (99.6%) achieved complete remission after RT. Five-year LRFS was significantly lower in patients with stage IIE than in those with stage IE (77.4% vs. 94.2%, p=0.047). Patients with age ≥ 60 had significantly lower LRFS than patients with age < 60 (89.3% vs. 95.1%, p=0.003). In the multivariate analysis, old age (≥ 60 years) was a poor prognostic factor for LRFS (hazard ratio, 3.72; confidence interval, 1.38 to 10.03; p=0.009). Grade 2 or higher gastritis was reported in 69 patients (30.1%). Secondary malignancies including gastric adenocarcinoma, malignant lymphoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer were observed in 11 patients (4.8%) after RT. Conclusion Patients treated with RT for localized gastric MALT lymphoma showed favorable 10-year outcomes. Radiation therapy is an effective treatment without an increased risk of secondary cancer. The toxicity for RT to the stomach is not high.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate long-term treatment outcomes in patients with localized gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma treated with radiotherapy (RT). Materials and Methods: A total of 229 patients who received RT in 10 tertiary hospitals between 2010 and 2019 were included in this multicenter analysis. Response after RT was based on esophagogastroduodenoscopy after RT. Locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: After a median follow-up time of 93.2 months, 5-year LRFS, DFS, and OS rates were 92.8%, 90.4%, and 96.1%, respectively. LRFS, DFS, and OS rates at 10 years were 90.3%, 87.7%, and 92.8%, respectively. Of 229 patients, 228 patients (99.6%) achieved complete remission after RT. Five-year LRFS was significantly lower in patients with stage IIE than in those with stage IE (77.4% vs. 94.2%, p=0.047). Patients with age ≥ 60 had significantly lower LRFS than patients with age < 60 (89.3% vs. 95.1%, p=0.003). In the multivariate analysis, old age (≥ 60 years) was a poor prognostic factor for LRFS (hazard ratio, 3.72; confidence interval, 1.38 to 10.03; p=0.009). Grade 2 or higher gastritis was reported in 69 patients (30.1%). Secondary malignancies including gastric adenocarcinoma, malignant lymphoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer were observed in 11 patients (4.8%) after RT. Conclusion Patients treated with RT for localized gastric MALT lymphoma showed favorable 10-year outcomes. Radiation therapy is an effective treatment without an increased risk of secondary cancer. The toxicity for RT to the stomach is not high.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate long-term treatment outcomes in patients with localized gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma treated with radiotherapy (RT). Materials and Methods: A total of 229 patients who received RT in 10 tertiary hospitals between 2010 and 2019 were included in this multicenter analysis. Response after RT was based on esophagogastroduodenoscopy after RT. Locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: After a median follow-up time of 93.2 months, 5-year LRFS, DFS, and OS rates were 92.8%, 90.4%, and 96.1%, respectively. LRFS, DFS, and OS rates at 10 years were 90.3%, 87.7%, and 92.8%, respectively. Of 229 patients, 228 patients (99.6%) achieved complete remission after RT. Five-year LRFS was significantly lower in patients with stage IIE than in those with stage IE (77.4% vs. 94.2%, p=0.047). Patients with age ≥ 60 had significantly lower LRFS than patients with age < 60 (89.3% vs. 95.1%, p=0.003). In the multivariate analysis, old age (≥ 60 years) was a poor prognostic factor for LRFS (hazard ratio, 3.72; confidence interval, 1.38 to 10.03; p=0.009). Grade 2 or higher gastritis was reported in 69 patients (30.1%). Secondary malignancies including gastric adenocarcinoma, malignant lymphoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer were observed in 11 patients (4.8%) after RT. Conclusion Patients treated with RT for localized gastric MALT lymphoma showed favorable 10-year outcomes. Radiation therapy is an effective treatment without an increased risk of secondary cancer. The toxicity for RT to the stomach is not high.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the differences in biomechanical function and energy absorption of the lower extremity in the sagittal plane when single leg drop landing between groups with flat foot and normal foot. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy men in their 20s were classified into 13 with flat foot and 15 with normal foot through evaluation of navicular drop test. Using a motion analysis system, loading rate (N/sec), peak vertical ground reaction force (N/body weight [BW]), sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle joint range of motion (°), peak moment (Nm/BW), peak joint power (W/BW) and peak joint work (J/BW) were calculated and analyzed during single leg drop landing. Results: During single leg drop landing, the flat foot and normal foot groups showed no significant differences in loading rate, peak vertical ground reaction force, hip and knee joint range of motion, peak knee and ankle joint moment, peak joint power, and peak joint work (p＞ 0.05). However, the flat foot group showed greater ankle range of motion and peak hip joint flexion moment compared to the normal foot group (p=0.040 and p=0.018, respectively). Conclusion The flat foot group shows sagittal plane landing mechanics that are different from the normal foot group during single leg drop landing and appears to try to distribute shock by relying on the distal joint compared to the normal foot group.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between reduced glutathione (GSH), a key molecule of the antioxidant defense system in the blood, and glutathione reductase (GR), which reduces oxidized glutathione (glutathione disulfide [GSSG]) to GSH and maintains the redox balance, with the prevalence of Alzheimer’s dementia and cognitive decline. Methods: In all, 20 participants with Alzheimer’s dementia who completed the third follow-up clinical evaluation over 6 years were selected, and 20 participants with normal cognition were selected after age and sex matching. The GSH and GR concentrations were the independent variables. Clinical diagnosis and neurocognitive test scores were the dependent variables indicating cognitive status. Results: The higher the level of GR, the greater the possibility of having normal cognition than of developing Alzheimer’s dementia. Additionally, the higher the level of GR, the higher the neurocognitive test scores. However, this association was not significant for GSH. After 6 years, the conversion rate from normal cognition to cognitive impairment was significantly higher in the lower 50th percentile of the GR group than in the upper 50th percentile. Conclusion The higher the GR, the lower the prevalence of Alzheimer’s dementia and incidence of cognitive impairment and the higher the cognitive test scores. Therefore, GR is a potential protective biomarker against Alzheimer’s dementia and cognitive decline.