Objective: Endovascular coil embolization is the primary treatment modality for intracranial aneurysms. However, its long-term durability remains of concern, with a considerable proportion of cases requiring aneurysm reopening and retreatment. Therefore, establishing optimal follow-up imaging protocols is necessary to ensure a durable occlusion. This study aimed to develop guidelines for follow-up imaging strategies after endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Methods: A committee comprising members of the Korean Neuroendovascular Society and other relevant societies was formed. A literature review and analyses of the major published guidelines were conducted to gather evidence. A panel of 40 experts convened to achieve a consensus on the recommendations using the modified Delphi method. Results: The panel members reached the following consensus: 1. Schedule the initial follow-up imaging within 3-6 months of treatment. 2. Noninvasive imaging modalities, such as three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or contrast-enhanced MRA, are alternatives to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) during the first follow-up. 3. Schedule mid-term follow-up imaging at 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after the initial treatment. 4. If noninvasive imaging reveals unstable changes in the treated aneurysms, DSA should be considered. 5. Consider late-term follow-up imaging every 3–5 years for lifelong monitoring of patients with unstable changes or at high risk of recurrence. Conclusions The guidelines aim to provide physicians with the information to make informed decisions and provide patients with high-quality care. However, owing to a lack of specific recommendations and scientific data, these guidelines are based on expert consensus and should be considered in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and circumstances.

Background: Several noninvasive tools are available for the assessment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) including clinical and blood biomarkers, transient elastography (TE), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques, such as proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). In the present study, we aimed to evaluate whether magnetic resonance (MR)-based examinations better discriminate the pathophysiologic features and fibrosis progression in NAFLD than other noninvasive methods. Methods: A total of 133 subjects (31 healthy volunteers and 102 patients with NAFLD) were subjected to clinical and noninvasive NAFLD evaluation, with additional liver biopsy in some patients (n=54). Results: MRI-PDFF correlated far better with hepatic fat measured by MR spectroscopy (r=0.978, P<0.001) than with the TE controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) (r=0.727, P<0.001). In addition, MRI-PDFF showed stronger correlations with various pathophysiologic parameters for cellular injury, glucose and lipid metabolism, and inflammation, than the TE-CAP. The MRI-PDFF and TE-CAP cutoff levels associated with abnormal elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase were 9.9% and 270 dB/m, respectively. The MRE liver stiffness measurement (LSM) showed stronger correlations with liver enzymes, platelets, complement component 3, several clinical fibrosis scores, and the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score than the TE-LSM. In an analysis of only biopsied patients, MRE performed better in discriminating advanced fibrosis with a cutoff value of 3.9 kPa than the TE (cutoff 8.1 kPa) and ELF test (cutoff 9.2 kPa). Conclusion Our results suggest that MRI-based assessment of NAFLD is the best non-invasive tool that captures the histologic, pathophysiologic and metabolic features of the disease.

Background/Aims: Although many studies have reported the promising effect of neoadjuvant treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) to increase resectability, only a few studies have recommended the use of first-line chemotherapeutic agents as neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC. The current study compared clinical outcomes between gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) in patients with BRPC. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 100 BRPC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed. Clinical outcomes included overall survival, resectability, and recurrence patterns after gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX treatment. Results: For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gemcitabine was administered to 34 patients and FOLFIRINOX to 66. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was administered to 27 patients (79.4%) treated with gemcitabine and 19 (28.8%) treated with FOLFIRINOX (p<0.001). The 2- and 5-year survival rates (YSRs) were significantly higher after FOLFIRINOX (2YSR, 72.2%; 5YSR, 46.0%) than after gemcitabine (2YSR, 58.4%; 5YSR, 19.1%; p=0.041). The margin negative rate was comparable (gemcitabine, 94.1%; FOLFIRINOX, 92.4%; p=0.753), and the tumor size change in percentage showed only a marginal difference (gemcitabine, 20.5%; FOLFIRINOX, 29.0%; p=0.069). Notably, the metastatic recurrence rate was significantly lower in the FOLFIRINOX group (n=20, 52.6%) than in the gemcitabine group (n=22, 78.6%; p=0.001). The rate of adverse events after chemotherapy was significantly higher with FOLFIRINOX than with gemcitabine (43.9%, 20.6%, respectively; p=0.037). Conclusions FOLFIRINOX provided more clinical and oncological benefit than gemcitabine, with significantly higher overall survival and lower cumulative recurrence rates in BRPC. However, since FOLFIRINOX causes more adverse effects, the regimen should be individualized based on patient’s general condition and clinical status.

Background: Several noninvasive tools are available for the assessment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) including clinical and blood biomarkers, transient elastography (TE), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques, such as proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). In the present study, we aimed to evaluate whether magnetic resonance (MR)-based examinations better discriminate the pathophysiologic features and fibrosis progression in NAFLD than other noninvasive methods. Methods: A total of 133 subjects (31 healthy volunteers and 102 patients with NAFLD) were subjected to clinical and noninvasive NAFLD evaluation, with additional liver biopsy in some patients (n=54). Results: MRI-PDFF correlated far better with hepatic fat measured by MR spectroscopy (r=0.978, P<0.001) than with the TE controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) (r=0.727, P<0.001). In addition, MRI-PDFF showed stronger correlations with various pathophysiologic parameters for cellular injury, glucose and lipid metabolism, and inflammation, than the TE-CAP. The MRI-PDFF and TE-CAP cutoff levels associated with abnormal elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase were 9.9% and 270 dB/m, respectively. The MRE liver stiffness measurement (LSM) showed stronger correlations with liver enzymes, platelets, complement component 3, several clinical fibrosis scores, and the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score than the TE-LSM. In an analysis of only biopsied patients, MRE performed better in discriminating advanced fibrosis with a cutoff value of 3.9 kPa than the TE (cutoff 8.1 kPa) and ELF test (cutoff 9.2 kPa). Conclusion Our results suggest that MRI-based assessment of NAFLD is the best non-invasive tool that captures the histologic, pathophysiologic and metabolic features of the disease.

Background/Aims: Although many studies have reported the promising effect of neoadjuvant treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) to increase resectability, only a few studies have recommended the use of first-line chemotherapeutic agents as neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC. The current study compared clinical outcomes between gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) in patients with BRPC. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 100 BRPC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed. Clinical outcomes included overall survival, resectability, and recurrence patterns after gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX treatment. Results: For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gemcitabine was administered to 34 patients and FOLFIRINOX to 66. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was administered to 27 patients (79.4%) treated with gemcitabine and 19 (28.8%) treated with FOLFIRINOX (p<0.001). The 2- and 5-year survival rates (YSRs) were significantly higher after FOLFIRINOX (2YSR, 72.2%; 5YSR, 46.0%) than after gemcitabine (2YSR, 58.4%; 5YSR, 19.1%; p=0.041). The margin negative rate was comparable (gemcitabine, 94.1%; FOLFIRINOX, 92.4%; p=0.753), and the tumor size change in percentage showed only a marginal difference (gemcitabine, 20.5%; FOLFIRINOX, 29.0%; p=0.069). Notably, the metastatic recurrence rate was significantly lower in the FOLFIRINOX group (n=20, 52.6%) than in the gemcitabine group (n=22, 78.6%; p=0.001). The rate of adverse events after chemotherapy was significantly higher with FOLFIRINOX than with gemcitabine (43.9%, 20.6%, respectively; p=0.037). Conclusions FOLFIRINOX provided more clinical and oncological benefit than gemcitabine, with significantly higher overall survival and lower cumulative recurrence rates in BRPC. However, since FOLFIRINOX causes more adverse effects, the regimen should be individualized based on patient’s general condition and clinical status.

Background/Aims: There has been growing evidence on the utility of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in borderline resectable (BR) or locally advanced (LA) pancreatic cancer. However, factors predicting survival in these patients remain to be identified, and we aimed to identify these prognostic factors. Methods: Between January 2013 and April 2017, patients with BR or LA pancreatic cancer who received FOLFIRINOX as their initial treatment were identified. Demographic data and clinical outcomes, including the chemotherapy response, conversion to resection, and survival, were reviewed. Results: A total of 117 patients with BR (n=39) or LA (n=78) pancreatic cancer were included. Of these patients, 29 (24.8%) underwent curative surgery, and R0 resection was achieved in 21 patients (72.4%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival time of all patients were 11.6 and 19.0 months, respectively. In resected patients, the median relapse-free survival and overall survival times were 14.8 and 28.6 months, respectively. In the multivariate Cox model, the lowest level of serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) and resection after FOLFIRINOX were independent factors for improved overall survival. In the subgroup analysis of patients with initial 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) images, the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the pancreatic mass was also shown as an independent factor for improved overall survival. Conclusions In patients with BR or LA pancreatic cancer, FOLFIRINOX is a valuable neoadjuvant treatment that enables curative surgery in approximately one-quarter of patients and significantly improves overall survival. In these patients, the prognosis can be estimated using the lowest level of serum CA 19-9, operative status, and initial FDG-PET SUVmax.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantations have a relatively low rate of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) in patients with off-label use. However, the clinical outcome in the Korean population regarding EES in patients with off-label use is not well known. OBJECTS: The aim of the current analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of on-label and off-label EES use over a 2-year follow-up period. METHODS: Using patient-level data from a stent-specific, prospective, all-comer registry, we evaluated 987 patients (1,342 lesions) who received an EES (XIENCE V®, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) implantation between February 2009 and April 2011. The primary outcome was assessed: 2-year MACE (a composite endpoint of death from any cause, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization). The clinical outcomes in the on- and off-label groups were compared at 2 years. RESULTS: The majority of patients (79.0%) were treated for ≥1 off-label indication. The median duration of the clinical follow-up in the overall population was 2.0 years (interquartile range 1.9–2.1). At 2-years after the EES implantation in the enrolled patients, MACE occurred in 71 (7.9%) patients, cardiac death in 12 (1.3%), MI in 4 (0.5%), target vessel revascularization (TVR) in 33 (3.8%), TLR in 22 (2.5%), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) in 1 (0.1%). Off-label EES implantations tend to increase the risk of 2-year MACE (4.7% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.063) without statistical significance. However, the rates of TLR were higher in the off-label EES implantations (0.0% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.013). In the multivariable analysis, renal failure, previous bypass surgery, previous cerebrovascular accident, and left main lesions were associated with 2-year MACE in patients with EES implantations. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of 2-year MACE was 7.9%, which that might be acceptable in all-comer patients treated with EES implantations. Although the off-label use of EES was not statistically associated with an increased risk of MACE, the TLR rate was higher in the off-label group, suggesting that physicians need to pay attention to high risk patients with the use of EES implantations.
Coronary Artery Disease ; Death ; Drug-Eluting Stents* ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Incidence ; Myocardial Infarction ; Off-Label Use ; Prospective Studies ; Renal Insufficiency ; Stents* ; Stroke ; Thrombosis