Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data. Materials and Methods: A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed. Results: Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS. Conclusion BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.

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: This study elucidates the mechanism of the physiological effect of cannabidiol (CBD) by assessing its impact on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation in RWPE-1 cells and prostatitis-induced by 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone in a rat model, focusing on its therapeutic potential for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Materials and Methods: RWPE-1 cells were stratified in vitro into three groups: (1) controls, (2) cells with LPS-induced inflammation, and (3) cells with LPS-induced inflammation and treated with CBD. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and western blots were performed on cellular components and supernatants after administration of CBD. Five groups of six Sprague–Dawley male rats were assigned: (1) control, (2) CP/CPPS, (3) CP/CPPS and treated with 50 mg/kg CBD, (4) CP/CPPS and treated with 100 mg/kg CBD, and (5) CP/CPPS and treated with 150 mg/kg CBD. Prostatitis was induced through administration of 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone. After four weeks of CBD treatment, a pain index was evaluated, and prostate tissue was collected for subsequent histologic examination and western blot analysis. Results: CBD demonstrated efficacy in vivo for CP/CPPS and in vitro for inflammation. It inhibited the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)uclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, reducing expression of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) (p<0.01). CBD exhibited analgesic effects by activating and desensitizing the TRPV1 receptor. Conclusions CBD inhibits the TLR4/NF-κB pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, desensitizes the TRPV1 receptor, and decreases the release of COX2. This results in relief of inflammation and pain in patients with CP/CPPS, indicating CBD as a potential treatment for CP/CPPS.

Idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (iNSIP) is recognized as a distinct entity among various types of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. It is identified histologically by the nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern. A diagnosis of iNSIP is feasible once secondary causes or underlying diseases are ruled out. Usually presenting with respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and cough, iNSIP has a subacute or chronic course. It predominantly affects females aged 50 to 60 years who are non-smokers. Key imaging findings on chest high-resolution computed tomography include bilateral reticular opacities in lower lungs, traction bronchiectasis, reduced lung volumes and, ground-glass opacities. Abnormalities are typically diffuse across both lungs with subpleural distributions. Treatment often involves systemic steroids, either alone or in combination with other immunosuppressants, although evidence supporting effectiveness of these treatments is limited. Prognosis is generally more favorable for iNSIP than for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, with many studies reporting a 5-year survival rate above 70%. Antifibrotic agents should be considered in a condition, termed progressive pulmonary fibrosis, where pulmonary fibrosis progressively worsens.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

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: This study elucidates the mechanism of the physiological effect of cannabidiol (CBD) by assessing its impact on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation in RWPE-1 cells and prostatitis-induced by 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone in a rat model, focusing on its therapeutic potential for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Materials and Methods: RWPE-1 cells were stratified in vitro into three groups: (1) controls, (2) cells with LPS-induced inflammation, and (3) cells with LPS-induced inflammation and treated with CBD. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and western blots were performed on cellular components and supernatants after administration of CBD. Five groups of six Sprague–Dawley male rats were assigned: (1) control, (2) CP/CPPS, (3) CP/CPPS and treated with 50 mg/kg CBD, (4) CP/CPPS and treated with 100 mg/kg CBD, and (5) CP/CPPS and treated with 150 mg/kg CBD. Prostatitis was induced through administration of 17β-estradiol and dihydrotestosterone. After four weeks of CBD treatment, a pain index was evaluated, and prostate tissue was collected for subsequent histologic examination and western blot analysis. Results: CBD demonstrated efficacy in vivo for CP/CPPS and in vitro for inflammation. It inhibited the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)uclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, reducing expression of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) (p<0.01). CBD exhibited analgesic effects by activating and desensitizing the TRPV1 receptor. Conclusions CBD inhibits the TLR4/NF-κB pathway by activating the CB2 receptor, desensitizes the TRPV1 receptor, and decreases the release of COX2. This results in relief of inflammation and pain in patients with CP/CPPS, indicating CBD as a potential treatment for CP/CPPS.

Idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (iNSIP) is recognized as a distinct entity among various types of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. It is identified histologically by the nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern. A diagnosis of iNSIP is feasible once secondary causes or underlying diseases are ruled out. Usually presenting with respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and cough, iNSIP has a subacute or chronic course. It predominantly affects females aged 50 to 60 years who are non-smokers. Key imaging findings on chest high-resolution computed tomography include bilateral reticular opacities in lower lungs, traction bronchiectasis, reduced lung volumes and, ground-glass opacities. Abnormalities are typically diffuse across both lungs with subpleural distributions. Treatment often involves systemic steroids, either alone or in combination with other immunosuppressants, although evidence supporting effectiveness of these treatments is limited. Prognosis is generally more favorable for iNSIP than for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, with many studies reporting a 5-year survival rate above 70%. Antifibrotic agents should be considered in a condition, termed progressive pulmonary fibrosis, where pulmonary fibrosis progressively worsens.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.