The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted the development of messenger RNA vaccines. Following extensive vaccination campaigns worldwide, several adverse reactions to these vaccines have been reported. This is a case series of unilateral lower extremity lymphedema after COVID-19 vaccination in two patients with a history of cervical cancer. An 82-year-old woman and a 68-year-old woman visited the outpatient clinic with unilateral leg edema after receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccine (BNT162b2; Pfizer-BioNTech) in the deltoid muscle. Both patients had a common history of cervical cancer treated with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy and were in complete remission. Gynecological evaluations, including laboratory and imaging studies, revealed no specific findings. Lymphoscintigraphy revealed delayed lymphatic drainage with diffuse dermal backflow in a unilateral lower extremity. This case series explores adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination in patients who are at high risk of developing lymphedema, providing novel data for similar clinical presentations.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted the development of messenger RNA vaccines. Following extensive vaccination campaigns worldwide, several adverse reactions to these vaccines have been reported. This is a case series of unilateral lower extremity lymphedema after COVID-19 vaccination in two patients with a history of cervical cancer. An 82-year-old woman and a 68-year-old woman visited the outpatient clinic with unilateral leg edema after receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccine (BNT162b2; Pfizer-BioNTech) in the deltoid muscle. Both patients had a common history of cervical cancer treated with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy and were in complete remission. Gynecological evaluations, including laboratory and imaging studies, revealed no specific findings. Lymphoscintigraphy revealed delayed lymphatic drainage with diffuse dermal backflow in a unilateral lower extremity. This case series explores adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination in patients who are at high risk of developing lymphedema, providing novel data for similar clinical presentations.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted the development of messenger RNA vaccines. Following extensive vaccination campaigns worldwide, several adverse reactions to these vaccines have been reported. This is a case series of unilateral lower extremity lymphedema after COVID-19 vaccination in two patients with a history of cervical cancer. An 82-year-old woman and a 68-year-old woman visited the outpatient clinic with unilateral leg edema after receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccine (BNT162b2; Pfizer-BioNTech) in the deltoid muscle. Both patients had a common history of cervical cancer treated with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy and were in complete remission. Gynecological evaluations, including laboratory and imaging studies, revealed no specific findings. Lymphoscintigraphy revealed delayed lymphatic drainage with diffuse dermal backflow in a unilateral lower extremity. This case series explores adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination in patients who are at high risk of developing lymphedema, providing novel data for similar clinical presentations.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted the development of messenger RNA vaccines. Following extensive vaccination campaigns worldwide, several adverse reactions to these vaccines have been reported. This is a case series of unilateral lower extremity lymphedema after COVID-19 vaccination in two patients with a history of cervical cancer. An 82-year-old woman and a 68-year-old woman visited the outpatient clinic with unilateral leg edema after receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccine (BNT162b2; Pfizer-BioNTech) in the deltoid muscle. Both patients had a common history of cervical cancer treated with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy and were in complete remission. Gynecological evaluations, including laboratory and imaging studies, revealed no specific findings. Lymphoscintigraphy revealed delayed lymphatic drainage with diffuse dermal backflow in a unilateral lower extremity. This case series explores adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination in patients who are at high risk of developing lymphedema, providing novel data for similar clinical presentations.

Background: An international reference measurement laboratory network for creatinine (Cr) is lacking; therefore, Korea developed an independent evaluation and certification system. The in vitro diagnostics (IVD) certification program, launched in 2017, formed part of a broader Cr standardization initiative intended to enhance accuracy at the manufacturing stage. Methods: The program was designed to evaluate analytical systems, including all reagent lots, calibrators, and instrument models, twice annually. Bias, imprecision, total error (TE), and linearity were evaluated based on established acceptance criteria. A post-certification process allows submission for a second challenge and validation of corrective actions. Results: Between 2017 and 2023, 489 analytical systems were evaluated. Average acceptance rates for bias, imprecision, TE, and linearity were 70.8%, 95.9%, 87.7%, and 87.8%, respectively. The lowest acceptance rate for bias evaluation was 8.7% for the kinetic Jaffe method without compensation in 2018. Over the 7-year period, the mean absolute percentage bias (absBias%), coefficient of variation (CV), and TE were 4.62%, 1.37%,and 7.29%, respectively. The highest absBias% (7.94%) was observed in the 0.0 ≤ Cr < 1.0target value range. Since 2019, a consistent reduction in absBias% has been observed. Conclusions This program is a pioneering response to the absence of a global certification program for Cr assays. It offers significant advantages, including comprehensive evaluations, fee-free participation, and a robust post-certification process. Continuous participation and improvement efforts by manufacturers have contributed to enhanced accuracy in Cr assays.

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.