Purpose: This 6-year post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted in South Korea to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of eribulin in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. Materials and Methods: During the study period (17 August 2012 to 16 August 2018), case-report files (CRFs) of patients receiving eribulin were collected. The main study endpoint was to assess the safety of eribulin. Evaluation of the effectiveness of eribulin was an exploratory endpoint. Patients were followed for 1 year after eribulin initiation. Results: CRFs were collected from 64 investigators at 64 sites for 1,079 patients. The safety analysis set (SAS) included 1,001 eribulin recipients; effectiveness was assessed in 244 patients. In the SAS, patients were predominantly female (99.6%), with a median age of 53.0 years, and diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (92.0%). Eribulin was administered as a median 4th line chemotherapy. A total of 2,124 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 661 patients (66.0%). Neutropenia was the most common TEAE (32.5% of patients), occurring at a median of 9-11 days from initial eribulin administration. Overall response and disease control rates were 31.7% and 95.6%, respectively, and the median duration of eribulin use (time to treatment failure) was 3.0 months. Conclusion This large real-world PMS analysis in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer demonstrated the effectiveness of eribulin and found no new safety concerns relative to safety information from prior clinical and real-world studies, and approvals in South Korea and other countries.

Purpose: The male predominance in the incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is established; however, sex differences in the prognosis of GC remain controversial. As such, this study analyzed the prognosis of patients with GC based on age and sex. Materials and Methods: Data from 14,739 patients diagnosed with GC at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between 2003 and 2023 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, histological types of GC, overall and GC-specific survival rates (age and stage stratification), and associated risk factors were analyzed. Results: Females were significantly younger (p < 0.001) and exhibited more gastric body cancers (p < 0.001) and tumors with diffuse-type or poorly differentiated histology (p < 0.001) than males. Females exhibited an advantage over males in terms of overall survival (p=0.004), but not in GC-specific survival. However, age stratification revealed significant sex differences, that females < 50 years of age exhibited survival disadvantages (p < 0.001); however, this trend was reversed with age, and females > 60 years exhibited survival advantages (p < 0.001) for both overall and GC-specific survival. This may be explained by the lower ratio of diffuse-type GC as females age. Furthermore, in the analysis according to stage, females with stage IV disease exhibited significant survival disadvantages, with significantly younger age and a higher proportion of diffuse-type GC which exhibits aggressive features, resulting in poorer survival than in males. Conclusion Age and stage stratification revealed significant differences in survival between the sexes, which can be helpful for public health strategies.

The gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is one of the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Between the 1990s and early 2000s, GIST was identified as a tumor characterized by KIT or PDGFRA mutations, resulting in imatinib being established as an effective targeted therapy. However, with advances in molecular diagnostics, approximately 10%–15% of GISTs have been reported to harbor alternative mutations, such as those in the succinate dehydrogenase subunit genes and BRAF, leading to the development of additional targeted therapies. GISTs exhibit a wide spectrum of clinical behaviors, ranging from indolent to highly aggressive, prompting the development of diverse risk classification systems. However, multiple systems remain in use, leading to inconsistent pathologic reports. Moreover, the mitotic counting method—a key factor in risk stratification—has become a major source of confusion among pathologists owing to the adoption of digital pathology and discrepancies between updated international guidelines and outdated reimbursement requirements. These inconsistencies have hindered pathologic reporting and communication between pathologists and clinicians. This review comprehensively overviews the historical background, molecular subtypes, and risk classification systems of GIST, focusing on evolving issues in mitotic rate evaluation and the application of risk classification systems in clinical practice.

Burning mouth syndrome remains a frequent source of diagnostic delay, repeated consultations, and fragmented care because it has long been treated as a “diagnosis of exclusion.” Recent updates in orofacial pain classification and research diagnostic frameworks support a practical shift: from an exclusionary label toward a structured diagnostic algorithm and staged, phenotype-guided management. This narrative, algorithm-focused clinical review aims to summarize clinically actionable evidence and to propose a “minimum sufficient workup” that prioritizes safety, efficiency, and patient-centered communication.We first outline pragmatic diagnostic criteria and key symptom patterns, then integrate current concepts of mixed mechanisms—peripheral neuropathic features, centralociplastic amplification, and psychosocial modulators—that account for symptom fluctuation and discordance between symptom severity and objective findings. The core of this review is a one-page stepwise algorithm: (1) confirm chronicity and absence of visible mucosal disease, (2) screen for red flags requiring urgent evaluation, (3) address common local contributors (e.g., candidiasis, irritants, contact allergy, xerostomia), (4) perform a targeted systemic/medication/deficiency panel, and (5) phenotype patients to guide staged treatment choices and follow-up. Finally, we provide a practical management framework emphasizing education, trigger control, and individualized combinations of topical, systemic, and behavioral interventions with predefined reassessment intervals. Future priorities include phenotype-stratified randomized trials and implementation outcomes that quantify reductions in diagnostic delay, misdiagnosis, and unnecessary testing.

Objective: In this study, we aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors for interstitial nephritis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the claims records of patients diagnosed with AS in Korea’s Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service Database between 2016 and 2019. The Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) intake score was used to calculate the NSAID dosage over 1 year after AS diagnosis. The incidence rate of interstitial kidney disease was calculated as the number of events per 1,000 person-years. The risks associated with sex, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, comorbidities, and concomitant medications were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model, with results presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In total, 11,749 patients with AS were included in this study. Of these, 79 patients had interstitial nephritis, with an incidence rate of 2.50 per 1,000 person-years. In multivariable analysis, female sex (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.56~3.83), hypertension (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.15~3.76), and renal failure (HR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.30~10.55) showed significant associations. However, NSAID use in the first year after AS diagnosis was not associated with interstitial nephritis occurrence. Conclusion The incidence of interstitial nephritis in patients with AS was 2.50 per 1,000 person-years, with female sex and comorbidities identified as significant risk factors. However, NSAID use during the first year after AS diagnosis was not associated with interstitial nephritis development.

Objective: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are widely used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, comparative analyses regarding their adverse events remain limited. This study aimed to compare the effects of different JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib) on hematological parameters in patients with RA in a real-world setting. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 552 patients with RA treated with JAK inhibitors between August 2015 and February 2024. Hematological parameters, including absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and platelet count, were assessed at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate changes over time, and logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with hematologic alterations. Results: The 552 patients were divided into three groups: tofacitinib (n=264), baricitinib (n=143), and upadacitinib (n=145). No significant differences in baseline hematological parameters were observed across the groups. After 6 months, ANC decreased in all groups without significant differences among them (p=0.465). Patients receiving baricitinib had significantly higher platelet counts than those receiving tofacitinib (Pillai’s trace value of 0.063, p<0.001) or upadacitinib (Pillai’s trace value of 0.029, p<0.001).Multivariate analysis revealed that baricitinib was significantly associated with increased platelet counts (odds ratio, 2.009; 95% confidence interval, 1.212~3.331; p=0.007). Conclusion Although all three JAK inhibitors reduced ANC, baricitinib was associated with a substantial increase in platelet counts. These findings highlight the differences in adverse effect profiles among JAK inhibitors, emphasizing the importance of tailored monitoring in RA management.

Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a stroke subtype with high mortality and poor functional outcomes. Prompt occlusion of a ruptured aneurysm at an early stage is crucial to prevent rebleeding, which can result in even higher mortality and more severe disabilities. The most critical initial decision in SAH management is the choice of treatment method with surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline to select the optimal initial treatment in patients with SAH. We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer two population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions comparing clipping and coiling. The risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcome and mortality. We included six randomized control trials (RCTs) and 58 observational studies. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that coiling improved functional outcomes compared to clipping (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.97). No significant mortality difference was observed in RCTs (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.91–2.09), but non-RCTs favored clipping for reduced mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69–0.86). However, it is difficult to generalize these findings to all clinical situations, as patients with SAH have a highly variable clinical course. Final treatment decision should be tailored to the individual patient’s status, including aneurysm location, morphology, and the expertise available at the treatment center. Such decisions are best made by specialists such as a board-certified physician and should be explained to the patient and their caregivers, along with the rationale for selecting the most appropriate treatment at the given hospital. Korea has many certified endovascular neurosurgeons, cerebrovascular surgeons, and certified cerebrovascular centers. Proper selection of the most suitable treatment method by certified physicians and centers would greatly benefit patient outcomes and healthcare professionals.

Accurate and early identification of stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) in emergency settings is essential for improving patient outcomes and ensuring the efficient allocation of medical resources. This clinical practice guideline systematically reviews domestic and international literature and conducts meta-analyses to evaluate the utility and diagnostic accuracy of stroke assessment tools used in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS). We developed a guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic EMS assessment tools for diagnosing stroke and LVO. Overall, 70 non-randomized control studies were selected for this study. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup analysis to distinguish between patients with stroke and those with LVO. EMS tools demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for diagnosing stroke. In the prehospital setting, using validated EMS stroke assessment tools is recommended for the early identification of stroke and LVO. Upon hospital arrival, stroke specialists should conduct further evaluation and triage to confirm the diagnosis and guide appropriate management. Delays in diagnosing LVO are frequently unacceptable. While experts advocate for the use of EMS assessment tools to facilitate early identification of LVO, these tools alone lack adequate sensitivity. Therefore, further diagnostic evaluations and consultation with stroke specialists upon hospital arrival are recommended.

The mothership (MS) model, where patients are directly transferred to a thrombectomy-capable center, and the drip-and-ship (DS) model, where thrombolysis is initiated at the nearest primary stroke center before transfer for thrombectomy, are the primary transport modes for patients with stroke. We aimed to establish guidelines for selecting the appropriate transfer strategy based on emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO). We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions comparing MS and DS models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcomes, mortality, and successful recanalization. Twenty-six non-randomized controlled studies showed that the MS model improved good functional outcomes by approximately 14% compared with the DS model (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.30). Fifteen studies reported that mortality in the MS and DS models showed no significant differences (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.11). Twenty-four studies revealed no significant difference in successful recanalization between the MS and DS models (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68–1.10). The MS model should be considered first to improve the functional outcome of patients with LVO. However, if thrombectomy cannot be performed immediately after thrombolysis, or if a thrombectomy-enabled hospital is not nearby, the DS model should be considered by stroke specialists depending on transportation time and regional factors. We suggest a mixed approach with the DS model based on specific circumstances or regions to ensure the optimum treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Appropriate transport for patients with LVO improves the prognosis of AIS.