Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

Purpose: Huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses significant treatment and prognosis challenges. This study aimed to determine whether preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for huge HCC is necessary. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated 435 patients with huge HCC who underwent upfront hepatectomy or hepatectomy after preoperative TACE from January 2009 to December 2018. TACE’s impact on survival and prognostic factors, including microvascular invasion (MVI) and satellite nodules (SNs), was analyzed. Results: The preoperative TACE group (n = 33) had a lower incidence of MVI (P = 0.009) and higher postoperative morbidity (P = 0.001), particularly pleural effusion (P = 0.004) and Clavien-Dindo class III–IV complications (P = 0.033), compared with the upfront hepatectomy group (n = 402). Short-term mortality (P = 0.828) and recurrence within 6 months (P = 0.654) were comparable between groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival curves showed no significant between-group differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.172) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.450). Local regional therapy for intrahepatic recurrences and surgical resection for extrahepatic recurrences were associated with better OS. MVI, SN, and hepatic vein tumor thrombosis were identified as significant risk factors for poorer RFS and OS. In patients without SN, preoperative TACE improved RFS (P = 0.039) but not OS. Conclusion Preoperative TACE for huge HCC was associated with reduced MVI but did not improve RFS and OS. Survival outcomes were more significantly influenced by SN, suggesting that upfront hepatectomy without TACE should be prioritized.

Prolonged skin inflammation is caused by disrupted skin barrier resulting in chronic inflammatory diseases such as atopic dermatitis. As a potent natural product with anti-inflammatory property, Aster glehni (A. glehni) is a traditional edible herb and has been used to treat diabetes or colitis-associated colon cancer. In present study, we figured out an additional effect of A. glehni ethanol extract (AGE) in pro-inflammatory cytokines-stimulated human keratinocytes. Mixture of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interferongamma (IFN-γ) was used to induce inflammatory responses in the HaCaT keratinocytes. AGE suppressed activation of ERK mitogen-activated protein kinase, nuclear factor (NF)-κB, and signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 and 3 (STAT1 and STAT3). The treatment of AGE inhibited mRNA expressions of proinflammatory cytokines in TNF-α and IFN-γ-stimulated HaCaT cells. Also, AGE induced up-regulated expressions of skin barrier molecules like filaggrin, loricrin, or ZO-1. We evaluated the effects of AGE on protein or mRNA expression levels using western blot or qRT-PCR, respectively. Taken together, these results suggest that the treatment of AGE exerts anti-inflammatory effect on keratinocytes through suppressing inflammatory signaling pathways and up-regulating skin molecules in HaCaT keratinocytes.

Purpose: For the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), research on primary lesions with mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes and efficacy of dose-escalated neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) to patients with LARC involving MRF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 301 patients who were diagnosed with LARC involving MRF and underwent NCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). Patients who received radiotherapy (RT) doses of ≤50.4 Gy were defined as the non-boost group, while ≥54.0 Gy as the boost group. Pathological tumor response and survival outcomes, including intrapelvic recurrence-free survival (IPRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS), were analyzed. Results: A total of 269 patients (89.4%) achieved a negative pathological circumferential resection margin and 104 (34.6%) had good pathological tumor regression grades. With a median follow-up of 32.4 months, IPRFS, DMFS, and OS rates at 5-years were 88.6%, 78.0%, and 91.2%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis by RT dose, the boost group included more advanced clinical stages of patients. For the non-boost group and boost group, 5-year IPRFS rates were 90.3% and 87.0% (p = 0.242), 5-year DMFS rates were 82.0% and 71.3% (p = 0.105), and 5-year OS rates were 93.0% and 80.6% (p = 0.439), respectively. Treatment related toxicity was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.211). Conclusion Although this retrospective study failed to confirm the efficacy of dose-escalated NCRT, favorable IPRFS and pathological complete response was achieved with NCRT followed by TME. Further studies combining patient customized RT dose with systemic therapies are needed.

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agent and anticoagulants are widely used in Korea due to increasing incidence of cardio-cerebrovascular disease and aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. Clinical practice guideline regarding this issue which was developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy was published in 2020. However, since then, new evidence has emerged for the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management, and revised guidelines were issued in the US and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised, cardiologists also participated in the development group, and the recommendations went through a consensus process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. This guideline provides useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and safety profiles of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT)+abiraterone/prednisone with those of ADT+docetaxel in patients with de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Materials and Methods: A web-based database system was established to collect prospective cohort data for patients with mHSPC in Korea. From May 2019 to November 2022, 928 patients with mHSPC from 15 institutions were enrolled. Among these patients, data from 122 patients who received ADT+abiraterone/prednisone or ADT+docetaxel as the primary systemic treatment for mHSPC were collected. The patients were divided into two groups: ADT+abiraterone/prednisone group (n=102) and ADT+docetaxel group (n=20). We compared the demographic characteristics, medical histories, baseline cancer status, initial laboratory tests, metastatic burden, oncological outcomes for mHSPC, progression after mHSPC treatment, adverse effects, follow-up, and survival data between the two groups. Results: No significant differences in the demographic characteristics, medical histories, metastatic burden, and baseline cancer status were observed between the two groups. The ADT+abiraterone/prednisone group had a lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression rate (7.8% vs. 30.0%; p=0.011) and lower systemic treatment discontinuation rate (22.5% vs. 45.0%; p=0.037). No significant differences in adverse effects, oncological outcomes, and total follow-up period were observed between the two groups. Conclusions ADT+abiraterone/prednisone had lower PSA progression and systemic treatment discontinuation rates than ADT+docetaxel. In conclusion, further studies involving larger, double-blinded randomized trials with extended follow-up periods are necessary.