Purpose: This study analyzed the pathological complete response (pCR) rates, long-term outcomes, and biological features of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-zero, HER2-low, and HER2-positive breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: This single-center study included 1,667 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were categorized by HER2 status, and their clinicopathological characteristics, chemotherapy responses, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were analyzed. Results: Patients with HER2-low tumors were more likely to be older (p = 0.081), have a lower histological grade (p < 0.001), and have hormone receptor (HorR)-positive tumors (p < 0.001). The HER2-positive group exhibited the highest pCR rate (23.3%), followed by the HER2-zero (15.5%) and HER2-low (10.9%) groups. However, the pCR rate did not differ between HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors in the HorR-positive or HorR-negative subgroups.The 5-year RFS rates increased in the following order: HER2-low, HER2-positive, and HER2-zero (80.0%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, respectively) (log-rank test p = 0.017). A significant survival difference between patients with HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors was only identified in HorR-negative tumors (5-year RFS for HER2-low, 74.5% vs. HER2-zero, 66.0%; log-rank test p-value = 0.04). Multivariate survival analysis revealed that achieving a pCR was the most significant factor associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 4.279; p < 0.001).Compared with HER2-zero, the HRs for HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were 0.787 (p = 0.042) and 0.728 (p = 0.005), respectively. After excluding patients who received HER2-targeted therapy, patients with HER2-low tumors exhibited better RFS than those with HER2-zero (HR 0.784, p = 0.04), whereas those with HER2-positive tumors exhibited no significant difference compared with those with HER2-low tumors (HR, 0.975; p = 0.953). Conclusion Patients with HER2-low tumors had no significant difference in pCR rate compared to HER2-zero but showed better survival, especially in HorR-negative tumors.Further investigation into biological differences is warranted.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Purpose: This study analyzed the pathological complete response (pCR) rates, long-term outcomes, and biological features of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-zero, HER2-low, and HER2-positive breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: This single-center study included 1,667 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were categorized by HER2 status, and their clinicopathological characteristics, chemotherapy responses, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were analyzed. Results: Patients with HER2-low tumors were more likely to be older (p = 0.081), have a lower histological grade (p < 0.001), and have hormone receptor (HorR)-positive tumors (p < 0.001). The HER2-positive group exhibited the highest pCR rate (23.3%), followed by the HER2-zero (15.5%) and HER2-low (10.9%) groups. However, the pCR rate did not differ between HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors in the HorR-positive or HorR-negative subgroups.The 5-year RFS rates increased in the following order: HER2-low, HER2-positive, and HER2-zero (80.0%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, respectively) (log-rank test p = 0.017). A significant survival difference between patients with HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors was only identified in HorR-negative tumors (5-year RFS for HER2-low, 74.5% vs. HER2-zero, 66.0%; log-rank test p-value = 0.04). Multivariate survival analysis revealed that achieving a pCR was the most significant factor associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 4.279; p < 0.001).Compared with HER2-zero, the HRs for HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were 0.787 (p = 0.042) and 0.728 (p = 0.005), respectively. After excluding patients who received HER2-targeted therapy, patients with HER2-low tumors exhibited better RFS than those with HER2-zero (HR 0.784, p = 0.04), whereas those with HER2-positive tumors exhibited no significant difference compared with those with HER2-low tumors (HR, 0.975; p = 0.953). Conclusion Patients with HER2-low tumors had no significant difference in pCR rate compared to HER2-zero but showed better survival, especially in HorR-negative tumors.Further investigation into biological differences is warranted.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.