1.Comparative Analysis of Romosozumab Versus Vertebroplasty With Denosumab: Efficacy, Safety, and Secondary Bone Mineral Density Outcomes
Hyun Woong MUN ; Jong Joo LEE ; Hyun Chul SHIN ; Tae-Hwan KIM ; Seok Woo KIM ; Jae Keun OH
Neurospine 2025;22(1):69-77
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).
Methods:
A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months.
Results:
At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716).
Conclusion
Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.
2.Comparative Analysis of Romosozumab Versus Vertebroplasty With Denosumab: Efficacy, Safety, and Secondary Bone Mineral Density Outcomes
Hyun Woong MUN ; Jong Joo LEE ; Hyun Chul SHIN ; Tae-Hwan KIM ; Seok Woo KIM ; Jae Keun OH
Neurospine 2025;22(1):69-77
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).
Methods:
A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months.
Results:
At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716).
Conclusion
Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.
3.Comparative Analysis of Romosozumab Versus Vertebroplasty With Denosumab: Efficacy, Safety, and Secondary Bone Mineral Density Outcomes
Hyun Woong MUN ; Jong Joo LEE ; Hyun Chul SHIN ; Tae-Hwan KIM ; Seok Woo KIM ; Jae Keun OH
Neurospine 2025;22(1):69-77
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).
Methods:
A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months.
Results:
At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716).
Conclusion
Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.
4.Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: an update of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Guidelines
Ji Geun YOO ; Sung Jong LEE ; Eun Ji NAM ; Jae Hong NO ; Jeong Yeol PARK ; Jae Yun SONG ; So-Jin SHIN ; Bo Seong YUN ; Sung Taek PARK ; San-Hui LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM ; Keun Ho LEE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e70-
We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.
5.Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: an update of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Guidelines
Ji Geun YOO ; Sung Jong LEE ; Eun Ji NAM ; Jae Hong NO ; Jeong Yeol PARK ; Jae Yun SONG ; So-Jin SHIN ; Bo Seong YUN ; Sung Taek PARK ; San-Hui LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM ; Keun Ho LEE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e70-
We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.
6.Comparative Analysis of Romosozumab Versus Vertebroplasty With Denosumab: Efficacy, Safety, and Secondary Bone Mineral Density Outcomes
Hyun Woong MUN ; Jong Joo LEE ; Hyun Chul SHIN ; Tae-Hwan KIM ; Seok Woo KIM ; Jae Keun OH
Neurospine 2025;22(1):69-77
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).
Methods:
A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months.
Results:
At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716).
Conclusion
Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.
7.Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: an update of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Guidelines
Ji Geun YOO ; Sung Jong LEE ; Eun Ji NAM ; Jae Hong NO ; Jeong Yeol PARK ; Jae Yun SONG ; So-Jin SHIN ; Bo Seong YUN ; Sung Taek PARK ; San-Hui LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM ; Keun Ho LEE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e70-
We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.
8.Comparative Analysis of Romosozumab Versus Vertebroplasty With Denosumab: Efficacy, Safety, and Secondary Bone Mineral Density Outcomes
Hyun Woong MUN ; Jong Joo LEE ; Hyun Chul SHIN ; Tae-Hwan KIM ; Seok Woo KIM ; Jae Keun OH
Neurospine 2025;22(1):69-77
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).
Methods:
A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months.
Results:
At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716).
Conclusion
Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.
9.Mitochondria Activity and CXCR4Collaboratively Promote the Differentiation of CD11c + B Cells Induced by TLR9 in Lupus
Sung Hoon JANG ; Joo Sung SHIM ; Jieun KIM ; Eun Gyeol SHIN ; Jong Hwi YOON ; Lucy Eunju LEE ; Ho-Keun KWON ; Jason Jungsik SONG
Immune Network 2024;24(4):e25-
Lupus is characterized by the autoantibodies against nuclear Ags, underscoring the importance of identifying the B cell subsets driving autoimmunity. Our research focused on the mitochondrial activity and CXCR4 expression in CD11c + B cells from lupus patients after ex vivo stimulation with a TLR9 agonist, CpG-oligodeoxyribonucleotide (ODN). We also evaluated the response of CD11c + B cells in ODN-injected mice. Post-ex vivo ODN stimulation, we observed an increase in the proportion of CD11chi cells, with elevated mitochondrial activity and CXCR4 expression in CD11c + B cells from lupus patients. In vivo experiments showed similar patterns, with TLR9 stimulation enhancing mitochondrial and CXCR4 activities in CD11chi B cells, leading to the generation of anti-dsDNA plasmablasts. The CXCR4 inhibitor AMD3100 and the mitochondrial complex I inhibitor IM156 significantly reduced the proportion of CD11c + B cells and autoreactive plasmablasts. These results underscore the pivotal roles of mitochondria and CXCR4 in the production of autoreactive plasmablasts.
10.Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines
Ji Geun YOO ; Sung Jong LEE ; Eun Ji NAM ; Jae Hong NO ; Jeong Yeol PARK ; Jae Yun SONG ; So-Jin SHIN ; Bo Seong YUN ; Sung Taek PARK ; San-Hui LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM ; Taek Sang LEE ; Jae Man BAE ; Keun Ho LEE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2024;35(2):e44-
This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail