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 compared the outcomes of haploidentical-related donor (HRD) and umbilical cord blood (UCB) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies. Methods: Data on patients who underwent HRD HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (n = 41) and UCB HSCT (n = 24) after targeted busulfan-based myeloablative conditioning with intensive pharmacokinetic monitoring between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The median follow-up durations in the HRD and UCB groups were 7.0 and 10.9 years, respectively. The cumu‑ lative incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grades II–IV and moderate-to-severe chronic GVHD did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the HRD group demonstrated significantly lower rates of acute GVHD grades III–IV (4.9% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.009) and non-relapse mortality (2.6% vs. 34.2%, p < 0.001) but a higher relapse incidence (32.1% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.004) than the UCB group. The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates were 65.8% and 54.2% (p = 0.204) and 78.0% and 65.7% (p = 0.142) for the HRD and UCB groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified disease status as a significant risk factor for overall survival (hazard ratio, 3.24; p = 0.016). Additionally, UCB HSCT exhibited a trend toward worse event-free survival compared to HRD HSCT (hazard ratio, 2.63; p = 0.05). Conclusions These findings indicate that HRD HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide provides promising outcomes compared to UCB HSCT in pediatric patients, with a trend toward improved survival over a long-term follow-up period exceeding a median of 7 years. Thus, HRD HSCT may be a valuable option for pediatric patients with‑ out human leukocyte antigen-matched donors.

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: This study compared the outcomes of haploidentical-related donor (HRD) and umbilical cord blood (UCB) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies. Methods: Data on patients who underwent HRD HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (n = 41) and UCB HSCT (n = 24) after targeted busulfan-based myeloablative conditioning with intensive pharmacokinetic monitoring between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The median follow-up durations in the HRD and UCB groups were 7.0 and 10.9 years, respectively. The cumu‑ lative incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grades II–IV and moderate-to-severe chronic GVHD did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the HRD group demonstrated significantly lower rates of acute GVHD grades III–IV (4.9% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.009) and non-relapse mortality (2.6% vs. 34.2%, p < 0.001) but a higher relapse incidence (32.1% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.004) than the UCB group. The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates were 65.8% and 54.2% (p = 0.204) and 78.0% and 65.7% (p = 0.142) for the HRD and UCB groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified disease status as a significant risk factor for overall survival (hazard ratio, 3.24; p = 0.016). Additionally, UCB HSCT exhibited a trend toward worse event-free survival compared to HRD HSCT (hazard ratio, 2.63; p = 0.05). Conclusions These findings indicate that HRD HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide provides promising outcomes compared to UCB HSCT in pediatric patients, with a trend toward improved survival over a long-term follow-up period exceeding a median of 7 years. Thus, HRD HSCT may be a valuable option for pediatric patients with‑ out human leukocyte antigen-matched donors.

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 compared the outcomes of haploidentical-related donor (HRD) and umbilical cord blood (UCB) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies. Methods: Data on patients who underwent HRD HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (n = 41) and UCB HSCT (n = 24) after targeted busulfan-based myeloablative conditioning with intensive pharmacokinetic monitoring between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The median follow-up durations in the HRD and UCB groups were 7.0 and 10.9 years, respectively. The cumu‑ lative incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grades II–IV and moderate-to-severe chronic GVHD did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the HRD group demonstrated significantly lower rates of acute GVHD grades III–IV (4.9% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.009) and non-relapse mortality (2.6% vs. 34.2%, p < 0.001) but a higher relapse incidence (32.1% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.004) than the UCB group. The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates were 65.8% and 54.2% (p = 0.204) and 78.0% and 65.7% (p = 0.142) for the HRD and UCB groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified disease status as a significant risk factor for overall survival (hazard ratio, 3.24; p = 0.016). Additionally, UCB HSCT exhibited a trend toward worse event-free survival compared to HRD HSCT (hazard ratio, 2.63; p = 0.05). Conclusions These findings indicate that HRD HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide provides promising outcomes compared to UCB HSCT in pediatric patients, with a trend toward improved survival over a long-term follow-up period exceeding a median of 7 years. Thus, HRD HSCT may be a valuable option for pediatric patients with‑ out human leukocyte antigen-matched donors.

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.

Osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures cause socioeconomic concerns, and medical system and policies appear insufficient to prepare for these issues in Korea, where the older adult population is rapidly increasing. Many countries around the world are already responding to osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures by adopting fracture liaison service (FLS), and such an attempt has only begun in Korea. In this article, we introduce the operation methods for institutions implementing FLS and characteristics of services, and activities of the FLS Committee for FLS implementation in the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research. In addition, we hope that the current position statement will contribute to the implementation of FLS in Korea and impel policy changes to enable a multidisciplinary and integrated FLS operated under the medical system.

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an excellent treatment option for a number of lumbar diseases. LIF can be performed through posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral or oblique approaches. Each technique has its own pearls and pitfalls. Through LIF, segmental stabilization, neural decompression, and deformity correction can be achieved. Minimally invasive surgery has recently gained popularity and each LIF procedure can be performed using minimally invasive techniques to reduce surgery-related complications and improve early postoperative recovery. Despite advances in surgical technology, surgery-related complications after LIF, such as pseudoarthrosis, have not yet been overcome. Although autogenous iliac crest bone graft is the gold standard for spinal fusion, other bone substitutes are available to enhance fusion rate and reduce complications associated with bone harvest. This article reviews the surgical procedures and characteristics of each LIF and the osteobiologics utilized in LIF based on the available evidence.