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.

Background: TP53 mutations are associated with poor prognosis in myelodysplastic neoplasm (MDS) and AML. The updated 5th WHO classification and International Consensus Classification (ICC) categorize TP53-mutated MDS and AML as unique entities. We conducted a multicenter study in Korea to investigate the characteristics of TP53-mutated MDS and AML, focusing on diagnostic aspects based on updated classifications. Methods: This study included patients aged ≥ 18 yrs who were diagnosed as having MDS(N = 1,244) or AML (N = 2,115) at six institutions. The results of bone marrow examination, cytogenetic studies, and targeted next-generation sequencing, including TP53, were collected and analyzed. Results: TP53 mutations were detected in 9.3% and 9.2% of patients with MDS and AML, respectively. Missense mutation was the most common, with hotspot codons R248/ R273/G245/Y220/R175/C238 accounting for 25.4% of TP53 mutations. Ten percent of patients had multiple TP53 mutations, and 78.4% had a complex karyotype. The median variant allele frequency (VAF) of TP53 mutations was 41.5%, with a notable difference according to the presence of a complex karyotype. According to the 5th WHO classification and ICC, the multi-hit TP53 mutation criteria were met in 58.6% and 75% of MDS patients, respectively, and the primary determinants were a TP53 VAF > 50% for the 5th WHO classification and the presence of a complex karyotype for the ICC. Conclusions Collectively, we elucidated the molecular genetic characteristics of patients with TP53-mutated MDS and AML, highlighting key factors in applying TP53 mutation-related criteria in updated classifications, which will aid in establishing diagnostic strategies.

Accurate occupation classification is essential in various fields, including policy development and epidemiological studies. This study aims to develop an occupation classification model based on DistilKoBERT.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Accurate occupation classification is essential in various fields, including policy development and epidemiological studies. This study aims to develop an occupation classification model based on DistilKoBERT.

Accurate occupation classification is essential in various fields, including policy development and epidemiological studies. This study aims to develop an occupation classification model based on DistilKoBERT.

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.

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient’s underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.