Background: Despite the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, limited data exist on their perceived benefits and challenges among patients and healthcare providers. This study explored CGM-related experiences in South Korea. Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted between January and December 2021 at four university hospitals. Respondents included patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), physicians, and DM education nurses. The survey assessed the use of CGM, its benefits, and barriers. Most devices were first-generation CGMs: FreeStyle Libre 1 (Abbott Diabetes Care), Dexcom G6 (Dexcom Inc.), and Medtronic Guardian 3 (Medtronic MiniMed). Results: Among 1,010 patients (33.4% with type 1 DM [T1DM], 63.6% with type 2 DM [T2DM], and 3.1% others; mean age, 51.4±14.6 years), 92.7% found CGM helpful. Although 59.6% reported discomfort, 81.9% intended to continue using CGM, indicating that perceived benefits outweighed barriers. The key advantages were glucose monitoring without finger pricks (T1DM, 57.9%; T2DM, 56.2%) and maintenance of target glucose levels. Discomfort was related to discomfort during activities (53.8%), skin problems (45.0%), and pain (43.0%). Healthcare provider recommendations were associated with reduced discomfort (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.60). Physicians (n=29) cited high costs as the main barrier (T1DM, 58.9%; T2DM, 64.8%); only 51.9% and 14.5% prescribed CGM for T1DM and T2DM, respectively. Insulin adjustment and glucose control were the main reasons for prescription, while cost (89.3%) and limited consultation time (67.9%) were barriers. DM educators (n=9) reported heavy workloads, with training and follow-up times averaging 31.7±7.5 minutes and 21.7±9.7 minutes, respectively; 77.8% of DM educators identified frequent patient inquiries as their greatest burden. Conclusion CGM provides significant clinical benefits but is limited by discomfort, costs, and educational burden. Sustained adoption requires device improvements, insurance support, and workforce expansion.

Living kidney donors with hypertension are potential candidates for solving the donor shortages in renal transplantation. However, the safety of donors with hypertension after nephrectomy has not been sufficiently confirmed. Methods: A total of 642 hypertensive and 4,848 normotensive living kidney donors who were enrolled in the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry between May 2014 and December 2020 were included in this study. The study endpoints were a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria. Results: In the entire cohort, donors with hypertension had a lower eGFR before nephrectomy in comparison to normotensive donors which remained lower after kidney transplantation. The incidence of proteinuria in hypertensive donors increased during follow-up. In propensity score-matched analysis, the risk of eGFR being <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–1.19) or <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.06–4.03) was not significantly increased in donors with hypertension. However, hypertensive donors were found to have a significantly higher risk of proteinuria than normotensive donors (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.05–4.94). Similar findings were also observed in the analysis of the entire cohort, indicating that hypertensive donors had a significantly higher risk of proteinuria (adjusted HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.10–2.85), without a substantial increase in the risk of decreased renal function. Conclusion: The risk of proteinuria after donation was substantially increased in donors with hypertension. These findings underscore the need for careful monitoring of proteinuria in hypertensive donors following donation.

Purpose: In Korea, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) mandates patient participation in outpatient multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings as part of national cancer quality assessment. However, the necessity of involving patients and families in MDT discussions remains debatable. This study explored international expert perspectives on patient participation in gastric cancer MDTs. Methods: A cross-national expert survey was conducted in September 2021 among 15 gastric cancer specialists from Korea, China, Japan, Singapore, and the United States. The survey assessed the frequency of patient and family member attendance, perceived pros and cons, and preferences regarding mandatory versus selective involvement. Additionally, MDT structures and policies were reviewed by countries. Results: Most respondents reported that patients and families rarely or never attend MDT meetings: nine stated that patients are never included, three reported “usually not,” and three indicated “sometimes.” None consistently included patients. The most cited benefits were sharing opinions with patients and families simultaneously, followed by improved explanation of treatment and legal protection. Major concerns included hindered discussion, inefficiency, and logistical challenges. Only four respondents supported routine participation, while 11 favored case-dependent involvement. Conclusion International experts do not widely support mandatory patient participation in MDT meetings. A flexible approach that allows MDTs to operate with or without patient involvement may better reflect actual clinical practice.

Purpose: Axillary surgery is increasingly omitted in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing upfront surgery, as supported by trials such as SOUND and INSEMA. However, in the neoadjuvant setting, the omission of axillary surgery has only been explored in small single-arm studies involving highly selected patients with confirmed breast pathologic complete response (pCR). The NeoNAUTILUS trial aimed to evaluate the oncologic safety of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with a high probability of achieving an axillary pCR (ypN0) following neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), regardless of breast pCR status. Methods NeoNAUTILUS is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted at 12 tertiary centers in Korea. Eligible participants were women with clinical T1–T3, N0, or selected N1 invasive breast cancer, who completed NST and were candidates for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Prior to enrollment, all patients underwent axillary ultrasound after NST completion to exclude suspicious lymph nodes. Patients with clinical N0 disease of any subtype were eligible for inclusion. Patients with clinical N1 disease with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive or triple-negative tumors may be included if their primary tumor demonstrates a > 30% reduction on magnetic resonance imaging after NST. Participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo BCS with or without SLNB, stratified by clinical nodal status and tumor subtype. Patients were randomized and remained blinded until surgery. The primary endpoint is the 5-year invasive disease-free survival. A total of 464 patients are expected to be enrolled over 3 years, with a 5-year follow-up period.Discussion: NeoNAUTILUS is the first randomized trial to assess the omission of axillary surgery after NST based on the predicted nodal response, independent of breast pCR. This study may redefine axillary management in the neoadjuvant setting by identifying patients who can safely avoid SLNB, thereby reducing surgical morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Objectives: This study aimed to present the Asia-Pacific consensus on long-term and sequential therapy for osteoporosis, offering evidence-based recommendations for the effective management of this chronic condition.The primary focus is on achieving optimal fracture prevention through a comprehensive, individualized approach. Methods: A panel of experts convened to develop consensus statements by synthesizing the current literature and leveraging clinical expertise. The review encompassed long-term anti-osteoporosis medication goals, first-line treatments for individuals at very high fracture risk, and the strategic integration of anabolic and anti resorptive agents in sequential therapy approaches. Results: The panelists reached a consensus on 12 statements. Key recommendations included advocating for anabolic agents as the first-line treatment for individuals at very high fracture risk and transitioning to anti resorptive agents following the completion of anabolic therapy. Anabolic therapy remains an option for in dividuals experiencing new fractures or persistent high fracture risk despite antiresorptive treatment. In cases of inadequate response, the consensus recommended considering a switch to more potent medications. The consensus also addressed the management of medication-related complications, proposing alternatives instead of discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions This consensus provides a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy for fracture prevention with an emphasis on shared decision-making and the incorporation of country-specific case management systems, such as fracture liaison services. It serves as a valuable guide for healthcare professionals in the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the ongoing evolution of osteoporosis management.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Purpose: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new bone lesions are sometimes not properly categorized through a confirmatory bone scan, and clinical significance of the test itself remains unclear. This study aimed to demonstrate the performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting and their prognostic impact in enzalutamide-treated mCRPC. Materials and Methods: Patients who received oral enzalutamide for mCRPC during 2014-2017 at 14 tertiary centers in Korea were included. Patients lacking imaging assessment data or insufficient drug exposure were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed. Results: Overall, 520 patients with mCRPC were enrolled (240 [26.2%] chemotherapy-naïve and 280 [53.2%] after chemotherapy). Among 352 responders, 92 patients (26.1%) showed new bone lesions in their early bone scan. Confirmatory bone scan was performed in 41 patients (44.6%), and it was associated with prolonged OS in the entire population (median, 30.9 vs. 19.7 months; p < 0.001), as well as in the chemotherapy-naïve (median, 47.2 vs. 20.5 months; p=0.011) and post-chemotherapy sub-groups (median, 25.5 vs. 18.0 months; p=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression showed that confirmatory bone scan performance was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.69; p=0.002). Conclusion Confirmatory bone scan performance was associated with prolonged OS. Thus, the premature discontinuation of enzalutamide without confirmatory bone scans should be discouraged.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.