1.Chromosomal Rearrangements in 1,787 Cases of Acute Leukemia in Korea over 15 Years
DongGeun SON ; Ho Cheol JANG ; Young Eun LEE ; Yong Jun CHOI ; Joo Heon PARK ; Ha Jin LIM ; Hyun-Jung CHOI ; Hee Jo BAEK ; Hoon KOOK ; Mihee KIM ; Ga-Young SONG ; Seo-Yeon AHN ; Sung-Hoon JUNG ; Deok-Hwan YANG ; Je-Jung LEE ; Hyeonug-Joon KIM ; Jae-Sook AHN ; Myung-Geun SHIN
Annals of Laboratory Medicine 2025;45(4):391-398
Background:
Chromosomal alterations serve as diagnostic and prognostic markers in acute leukemia. Given the evolving landscape of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia, we previously studied these over two periods. In this study, we investigated the frequency of these abnormalities and clinical trends in acute leukemia in Korea across three time periods.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed data from 1,787 patients with acute leukemia (319 children and 1,468 adults) diagnosed between 2006 and 2020. Conventional cytogenetics, FISH, and multiplex quantitative PCR were used for analysis. The patient groups were divided according to the following three study periods: 2006–2009 (I), 2010–2015 (II), and 2016–2020 (III).
Results:
Chromosomal aberrations were detected in 92% of patients. The PML::RARA translocation was the most frequent. Over the 15-yr period, chromosomal aberrations showed minimal changes, with specific fusion transcripts being common among patients.ALL was more prevalent in children than in adults and correlated significantly with the ETV6::RUNX1 and RUNX1::RUNX1T1 aberrations. The incidence of ALL increased during the three periods, with PML::RARA remaining common.
Conclusions
The frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia has changed subtly over time. Notably, the age of onset of adult AML has continuously increased. Our results may help in establishing diagnoses and clinical treatment strategies and developing various molecular diagnostic platforms.
2.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
3.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
4.Comparison of GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® in Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori Infection and Gastric Lesions
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Seon Hee LIM ; Ji Hyun PARK ; Jeong Hwan LEE ; Yeejin KIM ; Hyemin JO ; Ho-Kyoung LEE ; Jinju CHOI ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):148-156
Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.
5.Comparison of GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® in Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori Infection and Gastric Lesions
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Seon Hee LIM ; Ji Hyun PARK ; Jeong Hwan LEE ; Yeejin KIM ; Hyemin JO ; Ho-Kyoung LEE ; Jinju CHOI ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):148-156
Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.
6.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
7.Comparison of GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® in Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori Infection and Gastric Lesions
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Seon Hee LIM ; Ji Hyun PARK ; Jeong Hwan LEE ; Yeejin KIM ; Hyemin JO ; Ho-Kyoung LEE ; Jinju CHOI ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):148-156
Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.
8.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
9.Pembrolizumab for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Extranodal NK/T-Cell Lymphoma in Korea
Ji Yun LEE ; Ji Hyun KWON ; Joon Young HUR ; Jun Ho YI ; Ji Hyun LEE ; Hyungwoo CHO ; Young Rok DO ; Jae-Cheol JO ; Hye Jin KANG ; Yougil KOH ; Won Sik LEE ; Sung Nam LIM ; Sang Eun YOON ; Seok Jin KIM ; Jeong-Ok LEE
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(2):681-687
Purpose:
Programmed death-1 blockade with pembrolizumab has shown promising activity in relapsed/refractory (R/R) extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (NKTCL), but studies are limited, with small patient numbers.
Materials and Methods:
Thirteen institutes involved with the Consortium for Improving Survival of Lymphoma, a Korean lymphoma study group, collected the clinical data of 59 patients treated with pembrolizumab as salvage therapy between 2016 and 2022.
Results:
The median age of the patients was 60 years (range, 22 to 87 years), and 76.3% had advanced Ann Abor stage disease. Pembrolizumab was given to 35.6%, 40.7%, and 23.7% of the patients as second-, third-, and fourth- or higher-line chemotherapy, respectively. The overall response rate was 40.7%, with 28.8% having complete response. The estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates for all patients were 21.5% and 28.7%, respectively; for responders, the rates were 53.0% and 60.7%, respectively. Although not statistically significant, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.93 to 3.94; p=0.078) and stage III or IV disease (HR, 2.59; 95% CI, 0.96 to 6.96; p=0.060) were associated with a trend toward shorter PFS in multivariate analysis. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were noted in 12 patients (20.3%); neutropenia (10.2%), fatigue (6.8%), and pneumonitis (5.1%) were most common AEs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while pembrolizumab had a modest effect on patients with R/R NKTCL, it may be a useful salvage therapy for patients with localized disease and good performance status.
10.Prognostic Roles of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Radioiodine-Refractory Thyroid Cancer Treated with Lenvatinib
Chae A KIM ; Mijin KIM ; Meihua JIN ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Min Ji JEON ; Dong Jun LIM ; Bo Hyun KIM ; Ho-Cheol KANG ; Won Bae KIM ; Dong Yeob SHIN ; Won Gu KIM
Endocrinology and Metabolism 2024;39(2):334-343
Background:
Inflammatory biomarkers, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), serve as valuable prognostic indicators in various cancers. This multicenter, retrospective cohort study assessed the treatment outcomes of lenvatinib in 71 patients with radioactive iodine (RAI)-refractory thyroid cancer, considering the baseline inflammatory biomarkers.
Methods:
This study retrospectively included patients from five tertiary hospitals in Korea whose complete blood counts were available before lenvatinib treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated based on the median value of inflammatory biomarkers.
Results:
No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed among patients grouped according to the inflammatory biomarkers, except for older patients with a higher-than-median NLR (≥2) compared to their counterparts with a lower NLR (P= 0.01). Patients with a higher-than-median NLR had significantly shorter PFS (P=0.02) and OS (P=0.017) than those with a lower NLR. In multivariate analysis, a higher-than-median NLR was significantly associated with poor OS (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.24 to 7.29; P=0.015). However, neither the LMR nor the PLR was associated with PFS. A higher-than-median LMR (≥3.9) was significantly associated with prolonged OS compared to a lower LMR (P=0.036). In contrast, a higher-than-median PLR (≥142.1) was associated with shorter OS compared to a lower PLR (P=0.039).
Conclusion
Baseline inflammatory biomarkers can serve as predictive indicators of PFS and OS in patients with RAI-refractory thyroid cancer treated with lenvatinib.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail