Background: A novel botulinum toxin type A (Protoxin; Protox Inc.) has been developed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the newly developed Protoxin compared to the approved drug onabotulinumtoxinA (OBoNT) in moderate to severe glabellar lines. Methods: Adults with a glabellar line Facial Wrinkle Scale (FWS) score of 2 (moderate) or 3 (severe) were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Protoxin or OBoNT. A total of 20 units of botulinum toxin was injected at five sites in the glabellar region (4 units at each site). FWS scores were assessed at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 post-injection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects at week 4 who had a reduction of 2 or more points in FWS and a final score of 0 (none) or 1 (mild). Results: A total of 274 subjects were randomized, of whom 78.1% were female. At week 4 post-treatment, the improvement rate of glabellar lines was 62.22% in the Protoxin group and 62.96% in the OBoNT group. The lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (−12.24%) exceeded the −15% margin, confirming the non-inferiority of the new drug. Safety profiles were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion Protoxin demonstrated efficacy and safety profiles comparable to those of OBoNT in the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Informed consent is a fundamental aspect of surgical care, designed to reinforce patient autonomy, promote shared decision-making, and potentially mitigate legal conflicts by ensuring the provision of comprehensive and consistent information in clinical practice. The Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) previously published detailed informed consent documents for cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer surgery. However, standardized consent forms remain relatively lacking for laparoscopic-robotic hysterectomy performed for non-malignant indications, as well as for vulvar cancer surgery. Hence, the KSGO subcommittee collected, reviewed, and discussed consent forms from domestic medical institutions and subsequently developed informed consent for laparoscopic-robotic hysterectomy and vulvar cancer surgery, aiming to build patient trust and understanding.

Purpose: Esophagojejunostomy leakage (EJL) remains one of the most critical complications following total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the evolving therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes of EJL using data from a large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Among 6,577 patients who underwent total gastrectomy or proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction at nine institutions from 2003 to 2024, 196 (3.0%) developed EJL. Of these, 162 patients with comprehensive clinical data were included in the final analysis. The study examined treatment modalities, changes in management over time, patient characteristics, surgical variables, and clinical outcomes. Four groups were defined according to treatment approach: conservative, endoscopic, reoperation, and multimodal (combined) therapy. Results: Endoscopic therapy was first introduced in 2011 and has progressively supplanted reoperation, now comprising 32.5% of cases. The average time to EJL diagnosis was 8.4 days after surgery. Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.1% (10/162). When conservative management was excluded, endoscopic treatment demonstrated the highest rate of therapeutic success (94.3%, p = 0.004). Both the duration until diet resumption and length of hospital stay were notably reduced in the endoscopic and conservative groups compared with reoperation and multimodal therapy (p < 0.001). Moreover, although the highest post-leakage hospitalization costs were observed with multimodal treatment (p < 0.001), overall hospitalization expenses were significantly lower for patients managed conservatively or with endoscopic intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion Over the past two decades, management of EJL has shifted toward endoscopic approaches. Endoscopic therapies yield superior clinical outcomes and should be considered a primary option for appropriate candidates.

Background: Aortic valve sclerosis (AVS) shares risk factors with atherosclerosis. However, the relationship between AVS progression with cardiovascular (CV) risk has not been researched. This study investigates CV outcomes according to progression of AVS. Methods: This study included 2,901 patients with AVS (irregular leaflet thickening and peak aortic jet veloc‑ ity < 2 m/sec) who underwent serial echocardiograms at least 1 year apart during 2011–2020. The primary outcome was defined as CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization. Results: During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, 439 of 2,901 AVS patients (15.1%) progressed to mild or greater aortic stenosis. Patients with progression were older and more likely to have atrial fibrillation than those without. In a stepwise regression, age (odds ratio [OR] per 1-year increase, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01– 1.07), peripheral artery disease (OR, 9.07; 95% CI, 3.12–26.4), and left ventricular mass index (OR per 1-g/m 2 increase, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02) were associated with AVS progression. Over a median of 6.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 858 of 2,901 patients (29.6%). Patients with progression had higher frequency of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization than those without progression (P < 0.0001). In Cox proportional hazards regres‑ sion, AVS progression (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10–1.61) was a significant determinant of CV mortality. Conclusions The progression to aortic stenosis in AVS patients is an independent risk factor for CV mortality. These findings suggest that patients with AVS progression may benefit from stricter CV risk monitoring.

Background: Bulky or multiple lymph node (LN) metastases are associated with poor prognosis in cervical cancer, and the size or number of LN metastases is not yet reflected in the staging system and therapeutic strategy. Although the therapeutic effects of surgical resection of bulky LNs before standard treatment have been reported in several retrospective studies, wellplanned randomized clinical studies are lacking. Therefore, the aim of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group (KGOG) 1047/DEBULK trial is to investigate whether the debulking surgery of bulky or multiple LNs prior to concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) improves the survival rate of patients with cervical cancer IIICr diagnosed by imaging tests. Methods The KGOG 1047/DEBULK trial is a phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving patients with bulky or multiple LN metastases in cervical cancer IIICr. This study will include patients with a short-axis diameter of a pelvic or para-aortic LN ≥2 cm or ≥3 LNs with a short-axis diameter ≥1 cm and for whom CCRT is planned. The treatment arms will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either receive CCRT (control arm) or undergo surgical debulking of bulky or multiple LNs before CCRT (experimental arm). CCRT consists of extended-field external beam radiotherapy/pelvic radiotherapy, brachytherapy and LN boost, and weekly chemotherapy with cisplatin (40 mg/m 2 ), 4–6 times administered intravenously.The primary endpoint will be 3-year progression-free survival rate. The secondary endpoints will be 3-year overall survival rate, treatment-related complications, and accuracy of radiological diagnosis of bulky or multiple LNs.