This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Vertical positioning of dental implants relative to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of the adjacent teeth is essential for maintaining peri-implant bone stability and long-term success. This retrospective study evaluated how the vertical distance from the CEJ affects peri-implant bone loss in patients who had implants positioned at various distances from the CEJ. Bone loss was evaluated using panoramic radiographs over a 2-year follow-up period, with additional consideration of factors such as smoking and diabetes. Implants positioned >4 mm away from the CEJ exhibited a higher mean bone loss; however, this difference was not significant. Smoking significantly influenced bone loss, whereas diabetes and jaw location had no significant effect. These results highlight the potential influence of vertical implant positioning on peri-implant bone health and highlight the importance of appropriate maintenance care to reduce bone loss and ensure long-term implant survival.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Objective: Chemoresistant-epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has a poor prognosis, prompting the search for new therapeutic drugs. The diphenylbutylpiperidine (DPBP) class of antipsychotic drugs used in schizophrenia has shown anticancer effects. This study aimed to investigate the preclinical efficacy of penfluridol, fluspirilene, and pimozide (DPBP) using in vitro and in vivo models of EOC. Methods: Human EOC cell lines A2780, HeyA8, SKOV3ip1, A2780-CP20, HeyA8-MDR, and SKOV3-TR were treated with penfluridol, fluspirilene, and pimozide, and cell proliferation, apoptosis, and migration were assessed. The preclinical efficacy of DPBP was also investigated using in vivo mouse models, including cell lines and patient-derived xenografts (PDX) of EOC. Results: DPBP drugs significantly decreased cell proliferation in chemosensitive (A2780, HeyA8, and SKOV3ip1) and chemoresistant (A2780-CP20, HeyA8-MDR, and SKOV3-TR) cell lines. Among these drugs, penfluridol exerted a relatively stronger cytotoxic effect on all cell lines. Penfluridol significantly increased apoptosis and inhibited migration of EOC cells. In the cell line xenograft mouse model with HeyA8, the penfluridol group showed significantly decreased tumor weight compared with the control group. In the paclitaxel-resistant model with HeyA8-MDR, the penfluridol group had significantly decreased tumor weight compared with the paclitaxel or control groups. Penfluridol exerted anticancer effects on the PDX model. Conclusion Penfluridol exerted significant anticancer effects on EOC cells and xenograft models, including PDX. Thus, penfluridol therapy, as a drug repurposing strategy, might be a potential therapeutic for EOCs.

Objective: Neuroinflammation is suggested to play an important role in the pathophysiology of cognitive impairment. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between blood levels of biomarkers and cognitive impairment. Methods: We measured the blood levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in a sample of community-residing elderly Koreans (n=37). To evaluate cognitive function, we used the Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). We analyzed the association between biomarker levels and the total score, as well as the scores for each domain of the MMSE. Results: We excluded the scores in the three-word registration and naming domains of the MMSE from the analysis, because all participants received perfect scores. The results of simple regression analysis revealed that there is a statistically significant association between higher levels of IL-6 and decreased scores in the repetition domain of the MMSE. However, we found no significant association between TNF-α and IGF-1 levels and the scores of cognitive function tests. Conclusion Our results indicate a potential role of inflammatory cytokines in certain cognitive functions, which requires further exploration.

A pulmonary artery periadventitial hematoma is a rare complication of a Stanford type A intramural hematoma. As the proximal ascending aorta and pulmonary artery share a common adventitial layer, extravasated blood from the intramural hematoma in the ascending thoracic aorta may extend to beneath the adventitia of the pulmonary artery. The authors describe a case involving a 66-year-old male with acute chest pain who presented with a pulmonary artery periadventitial hematoma associated with a Stanford type A intramural hematoma.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in patients surgically treated for clinically early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically earlystage EOC based on preoperative abdominal-pelvic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings between 2007 and 2021. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative complications were compared between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups. Independent prognostic factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were the secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 586 patients (lymphadenectomy group, n=453 [77.3%]; nonlymphadenectomy groups, n=133 [22.7%]) were eligible. After surgical staging, upstaging was identified based on the presence of lymph node metastasis in 14 (3.1%) of 453 patients.No significant difference was found in the 5-year DFS (88.9% vs. 83.4%, p=0.203) and 5-year OS (97.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.895) between the two groups. Using multivariable analysis, lymphadenectomy was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. However, using subgroup analysis, the lymphadenectomy group with serous histology had higher 5-year DFS rates than did the non-lymphadenectomy group (86.5% vs. 74.4%, p=0.048; adjusted hazard ratio=0.281; 95% confidence interval=0.107–0.735; p=0.010). The lymphadenectomy group had longer operating time (p<0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p<0.001), and higher perioperative complication rate (p=0.004) than did the non-lymphadenectomy group. Conclusion In patients with clinically early-stage EOC with serous histology, lymphadenectomy was associated with survival benefits. Considering its potential harm,