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 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.
4.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.
5.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.
6.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.
7.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.
8.Korean Thyroid Association Guidelines on the Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers; Part I. Initial Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers - Chapter 4. Pathological Diagnosis and Staging after Thyroidectomy 2024
Su-Jin SHIN ; Hee Young NA ; Ho-Cheol KANG ; Sun Wook KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Young Joo PARK ; Young Shin SONG ; Eun Kyung LEE ; Dong-Jun LIM ; Yun Jae CHUNG ; Chan Kwon JUNG ;
International Journal of Thyroidology 2024;17(1):61-67
Postoperative pathological diagnosis of differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) is important to confirm the diagnosis and predict the risk of recurrence and death. Further treatment plans, such as completion thyroidectomy, radioiodine remnant ablation, or external beam radiation therapy, are then opted for to reduce the predicted risk of recurrence or death. The World Health Organization has classified thyroid cancers into seven distinct categories based on the molecular profile and tumor cell origin. Our recommendation is applicable to differentiated follicular cell-derived carcinoma, the most common form of thyroid cancer, and cribriform morular thyroid carcinoma. Postoperative clinical and pathological staging is recommended for all patients with DTC to determine their prognosis and subsequent treatment decisions. In particular, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) staging system is recommended for staging DTCs for disease mortality prediction and national cancer registries. The information in the pathology report, including histologic features of the tumor that are necessary for AJCC/UICC staging and recurrence prediction, can help assess the patient’s risk.
9.Korean Thyroid Association Guidelines on the Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers; Part IV. Thyroid Cancer during Pregnancy 2024
Hwa Young AHN ; Ho-Cheol KANG ; Mijin KIM ; Bo Hyun KIM ; Sun Wook KIM ; Won Gu KIM ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Young Joo PARK ; Young Shin SONG ; Dong Yeob SHIN ; Jee Hee YOON ; Dong-Jun LIM ; Yun Jae CHUNG ; Kwanhoon JO ; Yoon Young CHO ; A Ram HONG ; Eun Kyung LEE ;
International Journal of Thyroidology 2024;17(1):188-192
The prevalence of thyroid cancer in pregnant women is unknown; however, given that thyroid cancer commonly develops in women, especially young women of childbearing age, new cases are often diagnosed during pregnancy. This recommendation summarizes the follow-up and treatment when thyroid cancer is diagnosed during pregnancy and when a woman with thyroid cancer becomes pregnant. If diagnosed in the first trimester, surgery should be postponed until after delivery, and the patient should be monitored with ultrasound. If follow-up before 24–26 weeks of gestation shows that thyroid cancer has progressed, surgery should be considered. If it has not progressed at 24–26 weeks of gestation or if papillary thyroid cancer is diagnosed after 20 weeks of pregnancy, surgery should be considered after delivery.
10.Korean Thyroid Association Guidelines on the Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers; Part I. Initial Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers - Chapter 5. Evaluation of Recurrence Risk Postoperatively and Initial Risk Stratification in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer 2024
Eun Kyung LEE ; Young Shin SONG ; Ho-Cheol KANG ; Sun Wook KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Shin Je MOON ; Dong-Jun LIM ; Kyong Yeun JUNG ; Yun Jae CHUNG ; Chan Kwon JUNG ; Young Joo PARK ;
International Journal of Thyroidology 2024;17(1):68-96
The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) staging classification of thyroid cancer can predict death but cannot determine the type and frequency of follow-up testing. Risk stratification is a concept proposed by the American Thyroid Association that uses additional prognostic factors that are not included in the AJCC/UICC classification, such as number or size of metastatic lymph nodes, genetic mutations, and vascular invasion in follicular cancer, to further refine the prognosis of thyroid cancer. The risk of recurrence was categorized as low, intermediate, and high risk, and the need for total thyroidectomy, radioiodine therapy, or thyroid-stimulating hormone suppression was determined depending on each risk level. This approach has been accepted worldwide, and the previous recommendations of the Korean Thyroid Association followed a similar line of thinking but these have been modified in the revised 2024 guidelines.For the revised initial risk stratification, after careful review of the results of the recent meta-analyses and large observational studies and after a multidisciplinary meeting, four major changes were made: 1) thyroid cancer was reclassified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2022 tumor classification system; 2) recurrence risk was stratified by combining encapsulated follicular variant papillary thyroid cancer, follicular thyroid cancer, and oncocytic thyroid cancer, which have similar recurrence risk and associated factors, into follicular-patterned tumor; 3) low-risk groups were defined as those with a known recurrence rate of ≤5%, high-risk groups were upgraded to those with a known recurrence rate of ≥30%, and intermediate-risk groups were those with a recurrence risk of 5–30%; and 4) the intermediate risk group had the recurrence rate presented according to various clinicopathological factors, mainly based on reports from Korea. Thus, it is recommended to evaluate the initial risk group by predicting the recurrence rate by combining each clinical factor in individual patients, rather than applying the recurrence rate caused by single risk factor.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail