Purpose: Although numerous studies have identified potential risk factors for ipsilateral lymphedema development in patients with breast cancer following axillary node dissection, the risk factors for lymphedema in patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the real-world incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in such patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The development cohort (5,051 patients, January 2017–December 2020) was analyzed to identify predictors of lymphedema, and a predictive model was subsequently created. A validation cohort (1,627 patients, January 2014–December 2016) was used to validate the model. Results: In the development cohort, 49 patients (0.9%) developed lymphedema over a median follow-up of 56 months, with most cases occurring within the first three years post-operation.Multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or above, radiation therapy (RTx), chemotherapy, and more than three harvested lymph nodes significantly predicted lymphedema. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.824 for systemic chemotherapy, with the number of harvested lymph nodes being the most significant factor. Patients were stratified into four risk groups, showing lymphedema incidences of 3.3% in the highest-risk group and 0.1% in the lowest-risk group. In the validation cohort, the incidences were 1.7% and 0.2% for the highest and lowest risk groups, respectively. Conclusion The lymphedema prediction model identifies RTx, chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 , and more than three harvested lymph nodes as significant risk factors. Although the overall incidence is low, the risk is notably influenced by the extent of lymph node removal and systemic therapies. The model’s high negative predictive value supports its application in designing tailored lymphedema surveillance programs for early intervention.

Purpose: Although numerous studies have identified potential risk factors for ipsilateral lymphedema development in patients with breast cancer following axillary node dissection, the risk factors for lymphedema in patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the real-world incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in such patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The development cohort (5,051 patients, January 2017–December 2020) was analyzed to identify predictors of lymphedema, and a predictive model was subsequently created. A validation cohort (1,627 patients, January 2014–December 2016) was used to validate the model. Results: In the development cohort, 49 patients (0.9%) developed lymphedema over a median follow-up of 56 months, with most cases occurring within the first three years post-operation.Multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or above, radiation therapy (RTx), chemotherapy, and more than three harvested lymph nodes significantly predicted lymphedema. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.824 for systemic chemotherapy, with the number of harvested lymph nodes being the most significant factor. Patients were stratified into four risk groups, showing lymphedema incidences of 3.3% in the highest-risk group and 0.1% in the lowest-risk group. In the validation cohort, the incidences were 1.7% and 0.2% for the highest and lowest risk groups, respectively. Conclusion The lymphedema prediction model identifies RTx, chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 , and more than three harvested lymph nodes as significant risk factors. Although the overall incidence is low, the risk is notably influenced by the extent of lymph node removal and systemic therapies. The model’s high negative predictive value supports its application in designing tailored lymphedema surveillance programs for early intervention.

Purpose: Although numerous studies have identified potential risk factors for ipsilateral lymphedema development in patients with breast cancer following axillary node dissection, the risk factors for lymphedema in patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the real-world incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in such patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The development cohort (5,051 patients, January 2017–December 2020) was analyzed to identify predictors of lymphedema, and a predictive model was subsequently created. A validation cohort (1,627 patients, January 2014–December 2016) was used to validate the model. Results: In the development cohort, 49 patients (0.9%) developed lymphedema over a median follow-up of 56 months, with most cases occurring within the first three years post-operation.Multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or above, radiation therapy (RTx), chemotherapy, and more than three harvested lymph nodes significantly predicted lymphedema. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.824 for systemic chemotherapy, with the number of harvested lymph nodes being the most significant factor. Patients were stratified into four risk groups, showing lymphedema incidences of 3.3% in the highest-risk group and 0.1% in the lowest-risk group. In the validation cohort, the incidences were 1.7% and 0.2% for the highest and lowest risk groups, respectively. Conclusion The lymphedema prediction model identifies RTx, chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 , and more than three harvested lymph nodes as significant risk factors. Although the overall incidence is low, the risk is notably influenced by the extent of lymph node removal and systemic therapies. The model’s high negative predictive value supports its application in designing tailored lymphedema surveillance programs for early intervention.

Purpose: Outcome analysis of urachal cancer (UraC) is limited due to the scarcity of cases and different staging methods compared to urothelial bladder cancer (UroBC). We attempted to assess survival outcomes of UraC and compare to UroBC after stage-matched analyses. Materials and Methods: Total 203 UraC patients from a multicenter database and 373 UroBC patients in single institution from 2000 to 2018 were enrolled (median follow-up, 32 months). Sheldon stage conversion to corresponding TNM staging for UraC was conducted for head-to-head comparison to UroBC. Perioperative clinical variables and pathological results were recorded. Stage-matched analyses for survival by stage were conducted. Results: UraC patients were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001), with 163 patients (80.3%) receiving partial cystectomy and 23 patients (11.3%) radical cystectomy. UraC was more likely to harbor ≥ pT3a tumors (78.8% vs. 41.8%). While 5-year recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival were comparable between two groups (63.4%, 67%, and 62.1% in UraC and 61.5%, 75.9%, and 67.8% in UroBC, respectively), generally favorable prognosis for UraC in lower stages (pT1-2) but unfavorable outcomes in higher stages (pT4) compared to UroBC was observed, although only 5-year CSS in ≥ pT4 showed statistical significance (p=0.028). Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.929), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.921), pathologic T category (HR, 3.846), and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.993) were predictors of CSS for all patients. Conclusion Despite differing histology, UraC has comparable prognosis to UroBC with relatively favorable outcome in low stages but worse prognosis in higher stages. The presented system may be useful for future grading and risk stratification of UraC.

Objective: To compare the biomechanical properties of the glenohumeral joint capsule between adhesive capsulitis (AC) after breast cancer surgery and idiopathic AC and demonstrate the effects of hydrodilatation (HD) with corticosteroid injection for AC after breast cancer surgery. Methods: Twenty-three prospective patients with AC after breast cancer surgery (BC group) and 44 retrospective patients with idiopathic AC without breast cancer (CON group) underwent HD with corticosteroid injection and home exercise training. We compared their biomechanical characteristics (capsular capacity, maximal pressure, and capsular stiffness). In the BC group, the passive range of motion (ROM) of the affected shoulder and a questionnaire (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI]) were evaluated at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks after treatment. Results: The BC group showed higher biomechanical characteristics (maximal pressure and capsular stiffness) than did the CON group. The mean maximal pressure and capsular stiffness were 519.67±120.90 mmHg and 19.69±10.58 mmHg/mL in the BC group and 424.78±104.42 mmHg and 11.55±7.77 mmHg/mL in the CON group (p=0.002 and p=0.001, respectively). And, the BC group showed significant improvements in all ROMs (abduction, flexion, and external rotation) and the SPADI pain and disability sub-scores following the treatment. Conclusion The glenohumeral joint capsular stiffness was greater in the patients with AC after breast cancer surgery than in those with idiopathic AC. HD with corticosteroid injection was effective in treating AC after breast cancer surgery.

Background/Aims: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are the most widely prescribed medication for patients with vasospastic angina (VA). However, few studies have compared the prognosis of VA patients who are prescribed different CCBs. Methods: We enrolled 2,960 patients who received provocation test prospectively in 11 university hospitals in Korea. We divided 1,586 patients received four major CCBs into two groups: a first generation CCB (diltiazem and nifedipine) group and a second generation CCB (amlodipine and benidipine) group. Primary outcome was time to events of composite of death from any cause, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and symptomatic arrhythmia during 3-year follow-up. We also compared the effect of each CCB on the control of angina symptoms. Results: There was no difference of the primary outcome among the two groups with a cumulative incidence rate of 5.4%, 2.9%, and a person-month incidence rate of 2.33 and 1.26, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 1.17; p = 0.120, as reference with the 1st generation CCBs). The incidence of ACS was significantly lower in 2nd generation CCBs group with a person-month incidence rate of 1.66 vs. 0.35 (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.89; p = 0.034). Use of benidipine showed a significant better control of angina symptom compared with diltiazem for 3 years (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.32; p < 0.0001 at 3rd year). Conclusions The first and second generation CCB groups did not differ in terms of composite outcome occurrence. However, the ACS incidence rate was significantly lower in the users of the 2nd generation CCBs.