Purpose: To report the clinical utility of the Barrett True-K formula in predicting multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) power in a patient with corneal deformation caused by radial keratotomy (RK), where postoperative refractive power prediction is challenging.Case summary: A 61-year-old male who underwent RK 30 years ago presented for cataract surgery. Slit-lamp examination showed eight RK incisions in each eye. Refractive error was +3.25 D sph; -1.75 D cyl, axis 70 in the right eye and +2.75 D sph; -1.00 D cyl, axis 110 in the left. Uncorrected visual acuity was 0.32 in the right eye and 0.63 in the left. IOL power was calculated using the Barrett True-K formula on the IOLMaster 700, with a target refraction of -0.25 D, and a multifocal IOL was implanted. Six months after cataract surgery, both eyes achieved a fraction close to emmetropia, with best corrected visual acuity of 0.63 in the right eye and 1.0 in the left. No significant refractive shifts or other complications were observed during surgery or 6-month follow-up. Conclusions The Barrett True-K formula, which measures the actual corneal refractive power to compensate for corneal deformation, is expected to be clinically useful for multifocal IOL implantation during cataract surgery in eyes after RK.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical characteristics, etiologies, and treatment outcomes of pediatric macular holes (MHs). Methods: The medical records of pediatric patients under 18 years of age diagnosed with MHs at Severance Hospital between January 2005 and December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Data regarding etiology, MH diameter, treatment methods, and both visual and anatomical outcomes were analyzed. Results: Among 15 patients (16 eyes), traumatic MHs were identified in 7 cases (46.7%), while non-traumatic causes included Stargardt disease, familial exudative vitreoretinopathy, and vitreomacular traction. No statistically significant differences were observed between the traumatic and non-traumatic groups in terms of age, MH diameter, or initial and final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). However, there was a significant difference in sex distribution, with all traumatic cases occurring in males, whereas only 3 of the 9 non-traumatic eyes were male (p = 0.01). Surgical intervention was performed in 13 eyes, achieving anatomical closure in 62.5% (10 eyes). The three eyes without closure (37.5%) were all non-traumatic cases. BCVA (logMAR) significantly improved from a median of 1.00 preoperatively to 0.70 postoperatively (p = 0.013). Among the three eyes that did not undergo surgery, one demonstrated spontaneous closure, and another achieved closure following medical treatment. Conclusions Pediatric MHs may arise from various ocular conditions beyond trauma. Surgical intervention was effective, particularly for traumatic MHs, while non-traumatic cases demonstrated a lower closure rate. In some instances, spontaneous or medically induced closure occurred without surgical management. Further multicenter studies with larger cohorts are warranted to establish definitive management guidelines for pediatric MHs.

Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.

Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.

Olanzapine is a second-generation antipsychotic drug associated with the development of type 2 diabetes. However, the development and remission of diabetes with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibody (Ab) positivity related to olanzapine treatment have not been reported. Here, we present the case of a 33-year-old man taking olanzapine who was diagnosed with diabetes with GAD Ab positivity complicated by diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). After discontinuation of the drug and tight glycemic control, his diabetes remitted, and the GAD Ab became negative spontaneously after 18 months. The classification of diabetes is challenging because of overlapping autoimmune and metabolic features. Olanzapine may have contributed to pancreatic β-cell apoptosis, which could potentially trigger autoimmunity and the development of type 1 diabetes-like features (DKA as the initial presentation, a low C-peptide level, and GAD Ab positivity). The rapid amelioration of hyperglycemia and weight reduction may be responsible for the remission of diabetes after the discontinuation of olanzapine.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

The administration of high-dose vitamins has been focused on in critically ill patients as adjunctive therapy for life-threatening conditions. We evaluated the association between serum vitamin C concentrations and patient prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed and collected clinical and biochemical data, including thiamine and vitamin C levels, of patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Results: In total, 177 patients were admitted to the PICU during the study period, and 63 children were enrolled in this study. The most common reason for PICU admission was sepsis (33.3%). The median thiamine and vitamin C levels were 3.6 µg/dl (interquartile range [IQR], 2.9–4.5 µg/dl) and 2.84 µg/ml (IQR, 1.61–4.55 µg/ml), respectively. Thiamine deficiency was observed in 10 patients (15.9%), and 17 (27.0%) had vitamin C deficiency. There were no differences in the vitamin levels according to the reason for PICU admission. Vitamin C levels were affected by nutritional status. The length of stay in the PICU and duration of mechanical ventilation were longer in patients with vitamin C deficiency than in those without (P=0.035 and P=0.010, respectively). The serum delta neutrophil index and C-reactive protein and lactate levels increased in the vitamin C-deficient group (P=0.028 and P=0.039, respectively). There was a significant difference in Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 scores according to vitamin C levels but not in mortality directly. Conclusions: Vitamin C deficiency was associated with elevated inflammatory marker levels, increased mechanical ventilation durations, and PICU admission. Our results support the potential benefits of vitamin C administration in critically ill children.