Background: The 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0-hr/1-hr algorithm using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) aims at early diagnosis and shorter emergency department (ED) stays. While this algorithm has been well-established in controlled studies, real-world implementation remains challenging. We evaluated the algorithm’s clinical performance and risk stratification capability in patients with chest pain or discomfort. Methods: We measured hs-cTnI in 4,678 patients suspected of NSTE-ACS between August 2022 and July 2023, using an Atellica IM Analyzer (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). We categorized patients into rule-in, observe, or rule-out groups according to the algorithm and assessed its diagnostic performance for NSTE-ACS. The final diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was adjudicated by two independent physicians. Additionally, we evaluated 30-day all-cause mortality, hazard risk, and ED length of stay across the three groups. Results: The algorithm categorized 3,408 (72.9%), 573 (12.2%), and 697 (14.9%) patients into the rule-out, observe, and rule-in groups, respectively. Among 90 patients diagnosed as having NSTE-ACS, none were falsely categorized into the rule-out group. Survival analysis revealed significant differences (P < 0.001), with Cox hazard ratios of 2.38 (95% confidence interval: 1.20–4.71) and 6.39 (3.45–11.86) in the observe and rule-in groups, respectively. ED stays shortened in the order of rule-out, observe, and rule-in groups (P < 0.001). Conclusions The 2020 ESC 0-hr/1-hr algorithm demonstrates excellent diagnostic accuracy without false rule-outs and effective risk stratification, and contributes to efficient ED throughput, supporting its clinical utility in real-world emergency settings.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the detection ability of quality of life (QoL) changes and responsiveness of the KOrean QUality of life in Stomach cancer patients Study group (KOQUSS)-40 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ). Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate QoL changes after various gastrectomies between January 2021 and April 2022. Participants were instructed to complete the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. QoL changes over time and QoL responsiveness were assessed for each questionnaire. Results: Data from 491 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer at 22 institutions were analyzed. The summary scores of the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-STO22 showed significant differences between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.044 and p=0.038, respectively), but no difference was observed for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Dysphagia on the KOQUSS-40 was significantly different between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.031); however, dysphagia on the EORTC QLQ-STO22 did not differ. The responsiveness of the KOQUSS-40 was similar to that of the EORTC QLQ in patients who experienced ≥ 10% body weight loss, but approximately 10% less in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy than the EORTC QLQ. Conclusion KOQUSS-40 has several advantages over EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 when comparing QoL between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups. The findings provide information for researchers investigating the QoL of patients who have undergone curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

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: Ensuring reference material (RM) commutability is crucial for evaluating measurement traceability in order to standardize laboratory tests. However, commutability assessment is not routinely performed. We assessed whether RMs prepared following CLSI C37-A guidelines could be used without assessing commutability by evaluating their commutability for four lipid measurements using the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and CLSI EP14 protocols. Methods: We analyzed total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TGs), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in frozen sera from 20 individuals and 11 RMs, prepared by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention AgencyLaboratory Standardization Project (per CLSI C37-A), using six routine measurement procedures (MPs). Regression equations and 95% prediction intervals derived from single-donor sera were analyzed following CLSI EP14. The IFCC protocol was used to assess differences in inter-MP biases between RM and clinical samples. The effect of the TG concentration on commutability was evaluated by analyzing biases between MP results and reference procedure-assigned values. Results: RMs were commutable for most MP pairs for TC and TG. Commutability for HDL-C and LDL-C varied across RMs, with RM10 and RM11 showing higher TG levels (2.38 and 2.95 mmol/L, respectively) and lower commutability. Increased bias percentages from assigned values were observed for RMs with higher TG levels. Conclusions RMs prepared per CLSI C37-A were commutable with most MP pairs for TC and TG. Elevated TG levels affected HDL-C and LDL-C commutability, highlighting the need to consider TG concentrations during RM preparation and assess commutability to standardize laboratory tests.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

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.