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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Background and Objectives: Kawasaki disease (KD) is an acute vasculitis that primarily affects children under age 5 years. Approximately 20–25% of untreated children with KD and 3–5% of those treated with intravenous immunoglobulin therapy develop coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs). The prevalence of CAAs is much higher in male than in female patients with KD, but the underlying factors contributing to susceptibility to CAAs in patients with KD remain unclear. This study aimed to identify sex-specific susceptibility loci associated with CAAs in KD patients. Methods: A sex-stratified genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed using previously obtained GWAS data from 296 KD patients and a new replication study in an independent set of 976 KD patients by comparing KD patients without CAA (controls) and KD patients with aneurysms (internal diameter ≥5 mm) (cases). Results: Six male-specific susceptibility loci, PDE1C, NOS3, DLG2, CPNE8, FUNDC1, and GABRQ (odds ratios [ORs], 2.25–9.98; p=0.00204–1.96×10−6 ), and 2 female-specific susceptibility loci, SMAD3 (OR, 4.59; p=0.00016) and IL1RAPL1 (OR, 4.35; p=0.00026), were significantly associated with CAAs in patients with KD. In addition, the numbers of CAA risk alleles additively contributed to the development of CAAs in patients with KD. Conclusions A sex-stratified GWAS identified 6 male-specific (PDE1C, NOS3, DLG2, CPNE8, FUNDC1, and GABRQ) and 2 female-specific (SMAD3 and IL1RAPL1) CAA susceptibility loci in patients with KD.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Objective: Interpersonal sensitivity, characterized by a heightened awareness of others’ behavior and emotions, is linked to mood disorders. However, current literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of how some items of the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) interrelate and contribute to the overall construct. This study constructed a network for interpersonal sensitivity symptomatology to identify core IPSM items in patients with mood disorders. Methods: The IPSM, a 36-item self-report scale, was utilized to evaluate interpersonal sensitivity symptoms in 837 participants (major depressive disorder [MDD], n=265; bipolar I disorder [BD I], n=126; and bipolar II disorder [BD II], n=446). We performed exploratory graph analysis, employing regularized partial correlation models to estimate the network structure. Centrality analysis identified core IPSM symptoms for each mood disorder group. Network comparison tests assessed structural differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Results: Network analysis detected five communities. Item 10 (“I worry about being criticized for things that I have said or done”) showed the highest value in strength. Multiple items on “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” showed high strength centrality. Network structure invariance and global strength invariance test results indicated no significant differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” in the IPSM network among mood disorder patients based on core items of the network. Additionally, targeted treatments and comprehensive strategies in this aspect could be crucial for managing mood disorders.

Background/Aims: Optimal risk stratification based on simplified geriatric assessment to predict treatment-related toxicity and survival needs to be clarified in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: This multicenter prospective cohort study enrolled newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL (≥ 65 yr) between September 2015 and April 2018. A simplified geriatric assessment was performed at baseline using Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental ADL (IADL), and Charlson’s Comorbidity Index (CCI). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Results: The study included 249 patients, the median age was 74 years (range, 65-88), and 125 (50.2%) were female. In multivariable Cox analysis, ADL, IADL, CCI, and age were independent factors for EFS; an integrated geriatric score was derived and the patients stratified into three geriatric categories: fit (n = 162, 65.1%), intermediate-fit (n = 25, 10.0%), and frail (n = 62, 24.9%). The established geriatric model was significantly associated with EFS (fit vs. intermediate-fit, HR 2.61, p < 0.001; fit vs. frail, HR 4.61, p < 0.001) and outperformed each covariate alone or in combination. In 87 intermediate-fit or frail patients, the relative doxorubicin dose intensity (RDDI) ≥ 62.4% was significantly associated with worse EFS (HR, 2.15, 95% CI 1.30–3.53, p = 0.002). It was related with a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 symptomatic non-hematologic toxicities (63.2% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001) and earlier treatment discontinuation (34.5% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) in patients with RDDI ≥ 62.4% than in those with RDDI < 62.4%. Conclusions This model integrating simplified geriatric assessment can risk-stratify older patients with DLBCL and identify those who are highly vulnerable to standard dose-intensity chemoimmunotherapy.

Background and Objectives: Kawasaki disease (KD) is an acute vasculitis that primarily affects children under age 5 years. Approximately 20–25% of untreated children with KD and 3–5% of those treated with intravenous immunoglobulin therapy develop coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs). The prevalence of CAAs is much higher in male than in female patients with KD, but the underlying factors contributing to susceptibility to CAAs in patients with KD remain unclear. This study aimed to identify sex-specific susceptibility loci associated with CAAs in KD patients. Methods: A sex-stratified genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed using previously obtained GWAS data from 296 KD patients and a new replication study in an independent set of 976 KD patients by comparing KD patients without CAA (controls) and KD patients with aneurysms (internal diameter ≥5 mm) (cases). Results: Six male-specific susceptibility loci, PDE1C, NOS3, DLG2, CPNE8, FUNDC1, and GABRQ (odds ratios [ORs], 2.25–9.98; p=0.00204–1.96×10−6 ), and 2 female-specific susceptibility loci, SMAD3 (OR, 4.59; p=0.00016) and IL1RAPL1 (OR, 4.35; p=0.00026), were significantly associated with CAAs in patients with KD. In addition, the numbers of CAA risk alleles additively contributed to the development of CAAs in patients with KD. Conclusions A sex-stratified GWAS identified 6 male-specific (PDE1C, NOS3, DLG2, CPNE8, FUNDC1, and GABRQ) and 2 female-specific (SMAD3 and IL1RAPL1) CAA susceptibility loci in patients with KD.