Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the “probable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)” category in the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) v2022 guidelines. Materials and Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients at risk of HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between January 2015 and June 2018; a subgroup of these patients also underwent liver CT. Eligible patients had at least one non-cystic lesion (≥10 mm) with a reference standard. Four radiologists interpreted the images independently and the results were pooled. The performance of “definite HCC” and “probable HCC” together and “probable HCC” alone were compared between v2018 and v2022. Results: A total of 2,237 patients (1,666 men; mean age, 59 ± 11 years) with 2,445 lesions were included. In v2022, 1.5% (143/9,780) of the lesions were additionally categorized as “probable HCC” by four reviewers on MRI; among these, 104 lesions were not HCCs. Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) or FNH-like nodules constituted 90.4% (94/104) of the false positives. When “definite HCC” and “probable HCC” were combined, v2022 showed higher sensitivity (83.7% [5,670/6,776] vs. 83.1% [5,631/6,776]) but lower specificity (77.1% [2,316/3,004] vs. 80.6% [2,420/3,004]) than v2018 (P < 0.001). For “probable HCC” alone, v2022 showed a lower positive predictive value (PPV) than v2018 (64.1% [373/582] vs. 76.1% [334/439], P < 0.001). In v2022, lesions with non-rim arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE) showed a lower PPV than those without APHE (42.3% [91/215] vs. 76.8% [282/367], P < 0.001). In the CT subgroup (n = 1,590), 1.6% (99/6,360) of the lesions were reassessed as “probable HCC,” and its PPV was 83.8% (83/99) in v2022 whereas no lesions were classified as “probable HCC” under v2018. Conclusion The revised “probable HCC” category in the KLCA-NCC v2022 aligns with updates in the diagnostic flow, demonstrating acceptable performance on MRI and CT. Notably, FNH or FNH-like nodules can be misclassified as “probable HCC” when MRI is used.

Objective: To compare two breast cancer screening strategies, digital mammography (DM) plus radiologist-interpreted automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and DM plus selective ABUS review, in which only examinations positive for DM or flagged by ABUS artificial intelligence–computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) were reviewed by radiologists. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included asymptomatic women who underwent DM and ABUS screening for breast cancer between March 2022 and March 2023. The radiologists’ interpretations of DM and ABUS without AI assistance (DM + ABUS_radiologist) were collected from the clinical radiology reports. A selective DM plus ABUS reading strategy was simulated, in which only cases interpreted as positive in the radiologist’s DM report or flagged by retrospectively applied ABUS AI-CAD were triaged for further evaluation through a full review by radiologists (DM + ABUS_AI-CAD). The cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) were calculated and compared between DM + ABUS_ radiologist and DM + ABUS_AI-CAD groups using the McNemar’s test. Results: Among 2,275 women (mean age, 56.1 ± 8.6 years), 12 cancers were diagnosed. The sensitivity, CDR and AIR for DM + ABUS_radiologist was 83.3% (10/12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 51.6–97.9), 4.4 (10/2,275; 95% CI: 2.1–8.1) per 1,000 screening examinations and 16.7% (379/2,275; 95% CI: 15.1–18.3), respectively. DM + ABUS_AI-CAD triaged 84.0% (1,910/2,275) of the examinations as negative in both DM reports and retrospectively applied ABUS AI-CAD, requiring radiologist reassessment in only 16.0% (365/2,275). This approach reduced the AIR to 7.3% (167/2,275) and improved the specificity from 83.7% (1,894/2,263) to 93.1% (2,107/2,263) (all P < 0.001), while maintaining a CDR of 4.8 per 1,000 and a sensitivity of 91.7% (11/12) (all P > 0.999), compared to the DM + ABUS-radiologist. Conclusion An AI-CAD-assisted selective ABUS reading strategy reduces unnecessary recalls and improves specificity, which may help optimize reading priorities and reduce the reading workload while maintaining cancer detection performance.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for nursing students as representatives of young adults and to evaluate its effects and applicability. Methods: We employed a one-group pretest/posttest design to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for young adults and to assess its impacts on post-pandemic health promotion behavior, health self-efficacy, depression, and stress among nursing students. Using an online ad, we recruited young adults aged 19 to 29 living in South Korea who were attending nursing school; those who provided informed consent to participate in the study were enrolled. Results: The no-contact health promotion behavior program was effective at improving health promotion behavior (Z=-2.90, p=.004) and health self-efficacy (Z=-2.24, p=.025) and at alleviating depression (Z=-2.13, p=.033). Conclusion This study confirmed the potential of a no-contact program to advance health management among young adults. It also substantiated the program’s effects on fostering experiences and promoting personal health among nursing students, who are prospective healthcare professionals.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for nursing students as representatives of young adults and to evaluate its effects and applicability. Methods: We employed a one-group pretest/posttest design to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for young adults and to assess its impacts on post-pandemic health promotion behavior, health self-efficacy, depression, and stress among nursing students. Using an online ad, we recruited young adults aged 19 to 29 living in South Korea who were attending nursing school; those who provided informed consent to participate in the study were enrolled. Results: The no-contact health promotion behavior program was effective at improving health promotion behavior (Z=-2.90, p=.004) and health self-efficacy (Z=-2.24, p=.025) and at alleviating depression (Z=-2.13, p=.033). Conclusion This study confirmed the potential of a no-contact program to advance health management among young adults. It also substantiated the program’s effects on fostering experiences and promoting personal health among nursing students, who are prospective healthcare professionals.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for nursing students as representatives of young adults and to evaluate its effects and applicability. Methods: We employed a one-group pretest/posttest design to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for young adults and to assess its impacts on post-pandemic health promotion behavior, health self-efficacy, depression, and stress among nursing students. Using an online ad, we recruited young adults aged 19 to 29 living in South Korea who were attending nursing school; those who provided informed consent to participate in the study were enrolled. Results: The no-contact health promotion behavior program was effective at improving health promotion behavior (Z=-2.90, p=.004) and health self-efficacy (Z=-2.24, p=.025) and at alleviating depression (Z=-2.13, p=.033). Conclusion This study confirmed the potential of a no-contact program to advance health management among young adults. It also substantiated the program’s effects on fostering experiences and promoting personal health among nursing students, who are prospective healthcare professionals.

Purpose: Surveillance guidelines following breast cancer surgery recommend mammography as the sole imaging modality. However, the accuracy of mammography is low in younger women and in those with dense breast tissue. Additional imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may offer diagnostic benefits.This prospective, multicenter study (KBCSG-27) aims to compare the diagnostic performances of mammography, ultrasonography, and MRI for detecting second breast cancer (SBC) in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) and dense breasts. Methods This study will recruit approximately 1,756 women, aged 20–75 years, who were treated for stage 0–III breast cancer and have dense breast tissue on mammography.Participants will undergo two annual breast screenings, each consisting of mammography, ultrasonography, and MRI. MRI will be performed using either abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) or full-protocol magnetic resonance imaging (FP-MRI), which will be randomly assigned such that each participant receives both protocols alternately.Radiologists will independently interpret all images. A combination of pathology results and 12-month follow-up will serve as the reference standard. A patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool will be used to assess patients’ experiences and preferences between AB-MRI and FPMRI. The primary objective is to compare the cancer detection rates of ultrasonography versus AB-MRI and ultrasonography versus FP-MRI. Secondary outcomes include comparisons of the invasive cancer detection rates, abnormal interpretation rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, and interval cancer rates. Subgroup analyses will be conducted based on age, menopausal status, mammographic breast density, and molecular subtype. Additionally, PRO results of AB-MRI and FP-MRI will be compared.Discussion: This ongoing, prospective, multicenter study aims to evaluate the performance of ultrasonography, AB-MRI, and FP-MRI in SBC surveillance in women with PHBC and dense breasts. Enrollment is expected to be completed by 2025, with results anticipated after 2028.