Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Purpose: Due to its rarity, treatment guidelines for appendiceal cancer have traditionally followed those established for colorectal cancer, despite showing distinct histologic and clinical features. This study aimed to compare the clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term oncologic outcomes of appendiceal cancer with those of right-sided colon cancers. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with stage I–III appendiceal, cecal, or ascending colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2010 and 2020 at our center. A 1:3:3 exact matching for age, sex, TNM stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy was performed. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Results: Overall, 245 patients with appendiceal cancer (n = 35), ascending colon cancer (n = 105), and cecal cancer (n = 105) were analyzed. Appendiceal cancer exhibited a higher proportion of T4 tumors and fewer harvested lymph nodes compared with ascending or cecal cancers. The mean follow-up duration was 9.5 years. The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were lower in appendiceal cancer (66.2% and 52.9%) than in ascending (91.2% and 78.4%) or cecal cancer (88.5% and 78.3%). Similarly, the 10-year disease-free survival rate was lower in appendiceal cancer (59.2%) compared with ascending (83.1%) and cecal cancers (78.4%). Cox regression analysis identified age (≥65 years), perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion as independent predictors of poor prognosis. Conclusion Appendiceal cancer exhibited significantly worse long-term survival compared to cecal or ascending colon cancer. Tumor perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion were adverse prognostic factors for overall and disease-free survival.

Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 for predicting mortality and liver-related complications compared with the Child-Pugh classification, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, the MELD, and the MELD sodium (MELDNa) score. Methods: We evaluated a multicenter retrospective cohort of incorporated patients with cirrhosis between 2013 and 2019. We conducted comparisons of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the MELD3.0 and other models for predicting 3-month mortality. Additionally, we assessed the risk of cirrhosis-related complications according to the MELD3.0 score. Results: A total of 3,314 patients were included. The mean age was 55.9±11.3 years, and 70.2% of the patients were male. Within the initial 3 months, 220 patients (6.6%) died, and the MELD3.0had the best predictive performance among the tested models, with an AUROC of 0.851, outperforming the Child-Pugh classification, ALBI grade, MELD, and MELDNa. A high MELD3.0score was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Compared with that of the group with a MELD3.0 score <10 points, the adjusted hazard ratio of the group with a score of 10–20 pointswas 2.176, and that for the group with a score of ≥20 points was 4.892. Each 1-point increase inthe MELD3.0 score increased the risk of cirrhosis-related complications by 1.033-fold. The risk of hepatorenal syndrome showed the highest increase, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.149, followed by hepatic encephalopathy and ascites. Conclusions The MELD3.0 demonstrated robust prognostic performance in predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Moreover, the MELD3.0 score was linked to cirrhosis-related complications, particularly those involving kidney function, such as hepatorenal syndrome and ascites.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

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.

Background and Objectives: Several real-world studies have been done in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, information on its safety profile in patients with renal impairment is limited. XARENAL, a real-world study, aimed to prospectively investigate the safety profile of rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF with renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl], 15–49 mL/min). Methods: XARENAL is an observational single-arm cohort study in renal impairment NVAF patients. Patients were followed up approximately every 3 months for 1 year or until 30 days following early discontinuation. The primary endpoint was major bleeding events. All adverse events, symptomatic thromboembolic events, treatment duration, and renal function change from baseline were the secondary endpoints. Results: XARENAL included 888 patients from 29 study sites. Overall, 713 (80.3%) had moderate renal impairment (CrCl, 30–49 mL/min), and 175 (19.7%) had severe renal impairment (CrCl, 15–29 mL/min) with a mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45.2±13.0 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . The mean risk scores were 3.3±1.4 and 1.7±0.9 for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score and HAS-BLED score, respectively. An incidence proportion of 5.6% (6.2 events per 100 patient-years) developed major bleeding; however, fatal bleeding occurred in 0.5% (0.5 events per 100 patient-years). The mean change in the eGFR was 2.22±26.47 mL/min/1.73 m 2 per year. Conclusions XARENAL observed no meaningful differences in major bleeding events from other previous findings as well as renal function changes in rivaroxaban-treated NVAF patients with renal impairment, which is considered to be acceptable in clinical practice.

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: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.