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.

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.

Background: Daily usage of facial masks during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic influenced on facial dermatoses. Objective: This study investigated the impact of mask-wearing habits on facial dermatoses. Methods: A nationwide, observational, questionnaire-based survey was conducted from July through August 2021, involving 20 hospitals in Korea. Results: Among 1,958 facial dermatoses, 75.9% of patients experienced aggravation or development of new-onset facial dermatoses after wearing masks. In aggravated or newly developed acne patients (543 out of 743), associated factors were healthcare provider, female gender, and a long duration of mask-wearing. Irritating symptoms, xerosis, and hyperpigmentation were more frequently observed in this group. Aggravated or newly developed rosacea patients (515 out of 660) were likely to be female, young, and have a long duration of mask-wearing per day. Seborrheic dermatitis patients who experienced aggravation or de novo development (132 out of 184) were younger, and they more frequently involved the chin and jaw in addition to the nasolabial folds and both cheeks. Contact dermatitis patients (132 out of 147) with aggravation or de novo development tended to be female, involve both cheeks, and complain of pruritus. Aggravated or newly developed atopic dermatitis patients (165 out of 224) were more likely to be female, and had a higher baseline investigator global assessment score before mask-wearing. Conclusion Clinical features and factors related to aggravation were different according to the types of facial dermatoses.

Purpose: To compare the prognosis of patients with axillary adenocarcinoma from an unknown primary (ACUPax) origin with negative MRI results and those with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Materials and Methods: The breast MRI images of 32 patients with ACUPax without signs of primary breast cancer on mammography and ultrasound (US) were analyzed. Spot compression-magnification mammography and second-look US were performed for the area of MRI abnormality in patients with positive results; any positive findings corresponding to the MRI abnormality were confirmed by biopsy. If suspicious MRI lesions could not be localized on mammography or US, MR-guided biopsy or excision biopsy after MR-guided localization was performed. We compared the prognosis of patients with negative breast MRI with that for patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Results: Primary breast cancers were confirmed in 8 (25%) patients after breast MRI. Primary breast cancers were not detected on MRI in 24 (75%) patients, including five cases of false-positive MRI results. Twenty-three patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) followed by whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) and chemotherapy (n=17) or subsequent chemotherapy only (n=2). Recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur during follow up in 7/8 patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers and 22/24 patients with negative MRI results. Regional recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur in any MR-negative patient who received adjuvant chemotherapy after ALND and WBRT. Conclusion The prognoses of MR-negative patients with ACUPax who received ALND and WBRT followed by chemotherapy were as good as those of patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers.

Background: Biologics-experienced patients are more likely to show a lower response to biologics than that of biologic-naïve patients. However, no consensus on switching biologics exists. Objective: We aimed to investigate the switching patterns and efficacy of the switched biologics in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in actual clinical practice. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included 37 patients with a history of switching biologics. We analyzed the reasons for switching, the switching patterns, and psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 response rates after switching biologics. We also analyzed the factors affecting the PASI75 response rate to the second biologic. Results: The reasons for switching baseline biologics were primary failure in five patients (13.5%), secondary failure in 28 patients (75.7%), and adverse events in four patients (10.8%). The second biologics prescribed mostly include interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor in twenty-four patients (64.9%), IL-17 inhibitor in eight patients (21.6%), tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor in three patients (8.1%), and IL-12/23 inhibitor in two patients (5.4%). A total of 46% of patients (17/37) switched biologics from IL-12/23 inhibitors to IL-23 inhibitors. The PASI75 response rates at the primary endpoint of the second and third biologics were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively. Our study found that female sex and obesity were associated with the primary failure of the second biologic. Conclusion Secondary failure was the most common reason for switching baseline biologics. Korean dermatologists prefer different classes of biologics while switching. The PASI75 response rates at the primary endpoints of the second and third biologics were relatively satisfactory.

Background: The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score is suggested to use for screening patients with a high risk of clinical deterioration in the general wards, which could simply be regarded as a general early warning score. However, comparison of unselected admissions to highlight the benefits of introducing qSOFA in hospitals already using Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) remains unclear. We sought to compare qSOFA with MEWS for predicting clinical deterioration in general ward patients regardless of suspected infection. Methods: The predictive performance of qSOFA and MEWS for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) or unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) transfer was compared with the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis using the databases of vital signs collected from consecutive hospitalized adult patients over 12 months in five participating hospitals in Korea. Results: Of 173,057 hospitalized patients included for analysis, 668 (0.39%) experienced the composite outcome. The discrimination for the composite outcome for MEWS (AUC, 0.777;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.770–0.781) was higher than that for qSOFA (AUC, 0.684;95% CI, 0.676–0.686; P < 0.001). In addition, MEWS was better for prediction of IHCA (AUC, 0.792; 95% CI, 0.781–0.795 vs. AUC, 0.640; 95% CI, 0.625–0.645; P < 0.001) and unexpected ICU transfer (AUC, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.760–0.773 vs. AUC, 0.716; 95% CI, 0.707–0.718; P < 0.001) than qSOFA. Using the MEWS at a cutoff of ≥ 5 would correctly reclassify 3.7% of patients from qSOFA score ≥ 2. Most patients met MEWS ≥ 5 criteria 13 hours before the composite outcome compared with 11 hours for qSOFA score ≥ 2. Conclusion MEWS is more accurate that qSOFA score for predicting IHCA or unexpected ICU transfer in patients outside the ICU. Our study suggests that qSOFA should not replace MEWS for identifying patients in the general wards at risk of poor outcome.