Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Objective: To investigate whether breast tissue composition on preoperative automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is associated with the accuracy of cancer multiplicity evaluation and postoperative recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis included women with early-stage breast cancer (clinical Tis, T1–2/N0) who underwent ABUS and digital mammography (DM) between October 2019 and April 2021. Tissue composition on ABUS was assessed using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System background echotexture (BE) (homogeneous-fat, homogeneous-fibroglandular, or heterogeneous). In a subgroup of patients with mammographically dense breasts, the glandular tissue component (GTC) on ABUS were further stratified into high (moderate or marked) or low (minimal or mild).Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with accurate cancer multiplicity categorization (unifocal, multifocal/multicentric, or bilateral) using ABUS + DM, and with RFS, respectively. Results: Among 409 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 50.2 ± 8.7 years), ABUS combined with DM yielded accurate cancer multiplicity categorization in 368 patients (90.0%). Neither BE nor GTC on ABUS affected the accuracy of categorization when ABUS was combined with DM. Over a median postoperative follow-up of 3.5 years, 11 recurrences occurred. Heterogeneous BE on ABUS (hazard ratio [HR] 11.24 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.82–44.92]; P = 0.001), BRCA mutation (HR 15.94 [2.47–102.97]; P = 0.004), and pathologic index cancer size (HR per 1-cm increase 1.91 [1.13–3.23];P = 0.02) was independently associated with RFS. In patients with dense breasts, heterogeneous BE (HR 14.17 [95% CI:2.69–74.60]; P = 0.002) and high GTC (HR 10.32 [2.35–45.28]; P = 0.002) on ABUS, BRCA mutation (HR 24.34 [2.75– 215.06]; P = 0.004), and pathologic cancer size (HR per 1-cm increase 2.62 [1.50–4.59]; P = 0.001) was independently associated with RFS. Conclusion In patients with early-stage breast cancer, heterogeneous BE and high GTC on preoperative ABUS, along with larger cancer size and BRCA mutation, was associated with worse RFS. However, BE and GTC did not affect cancer multiplicity evaluation when ABUS was used in combination with DM.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.