Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

The selected treatment for a nodule that is diagnosed as thyroid cancer is surgery. Imaging and blood tests are performed prior to surgery to determine the extent of the surgery. An Ultrasound (US) of the thyroid and neck should be performed to evaluate the size of the cancer, whether it is multifocal and has invaded surrounding tissues, and the status of the cervical lymph nodes (LNs). In addition to US, contrast-enhanced computed tomography may help detect cervical LN metastasis and evaluate patients suspected with invasive thyroid cancer.Generally, routine preoperative measurement of serum thyroglobulin and thyroglobulin antibody concentrations is not recommended. Integrated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission/computed tomography may be helpful either in patients with suspected lateral cervical LNs or distant metastasis or in patients with aggressive histology.

Only a small percentage of patients (2-5%) with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) exhibit distant metastasis at the initial diagnosis or during the disease course. The most common metastatic sites of DTC are the lungs, followed by the bones. Radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy is considered the primary treatment for RAI-avid distant metastatic DTC. Depending on the characteristics of metastatic lesions, local treatment such as surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, and external beam radiation therapy may be considered for some patients with metastatic DTC. Slowly growing and asymptomatic metastases can be monitored with follow-up while receiving thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) suppression therapy. In patients with a limited number of lung metastases and good performance status, surgical removal of the metastatic lesions may be considered. Systemic therapy should be considered for patients with progressive RAI refractory DTC. In this clinical guideline, we aim to outline the treatment principles for patients with lung, bone, and brain metastases of DTC.

The initial treatment for differentiated thyroid cancer includes appropriate surgery and radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy, followed by thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) suppression therapy as long-term management to prevent recurrence. RAI therapy following thyroidectomy has the three main purposes: remnant ablation, adjuvant therapy, and therapy for known disease. To optimize the goals and targets of RAI therapy, postoperative disease assessment, determination of recurrence risk, and consideration of various individual factors are necessary. The objectives of RAI therapy are determined based on the individual’s recurrence risk, and the administered activity of RAI is then determined according to these treatment objectives. Adequate stimulation of serum TSH is necessary before RAI therapy, and recombinant human TSH is widely used because of its advantage in reducing the risk of exacerbation of comorbidities associated with levothyroxine discontinuation and improving patients’ quality of life. Additionally, reducing iodine intake through appropriate low-iodine diet is necessary. Whole-body scans are conducted to assess the disease status after RAI therapy. If planar whole-body scans are inconclusive, additional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT imaging is recommended. Over the past decade, prospective randomized or retrospective clinical studies on the selection of candidates for RAI therapy, administered activity, methods of TSH stimulation, and advantages of SPECT/CT have been published. Based on these latest clinical research findings and recommendations from relevant overseas medical societies, this clinical practice guideline presents the indications and methods for administering RAI therapy after thyroidectomy.

Based on the clinical, histopathological, and perioperative data of a patient with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), risk stratification based on their initial recurrence risk is a crucial follow-up (FU) strategy during the first 1–2 years after initial therapy. However, restratifiying the recurrence risk on the basis of current clinical data that becomes available after considering the response to treatment (ongoing risk stratification, ORS) provides a more accurate prediction of the status at the final FU and a more tailored management approach. Since the 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and DTC, the latest guidelines that include the National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice and European Association for Medical Oncology guidelines have been updated to reflect several recent evidence in ORS and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) suppression of DTC. The current clinical practice guideline was developed by extracting FU surveillance after the initial treatment section from the previous version of guidelines and updating it to reflect recent evidence. The current revised guideline includes recommendations for recent ORS, TSH target level based on risk stratification, FU tools for detection of recurrence and assessment of disease status, and long-term FU strategy for consideration of the disease status. These evidence-based recommendations are expected to avoid overtreatment and intensive FU of the majority of patients who will have a very good prognosis after the initial treatment of DTC patients, thereby ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate and effective treatment and FU options.

Radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy can effectively eliminate persistent or recurrent disease in patients with advanced differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), potentially improving progression-free, disease-specific, and overall survival rates. Repeated administration of RAI along with thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) suppression is the mainstay of treatment for patients with distant metastases. Remarkably, one in three patients with distant metastases can be cured using RAI therapy and experience a near-normal life expectancy. Patients with elevated serum thyroglobulin and a negative post-RAI scan may be considered for empiric RAI therapy in the absence of structurally evident disease. However, in some patients, the iodine uptake capacity of advanced lesions decreases over time, potentially resulting in RAI-refractory disease. RAI-administered dose can be either empirically fixed high activities or dosimetry-based individualized activities for treatment of known diseases. The preparation method (levothyroxine withdrawal vs. recombinant human TSH administration) should be individualized for each patient.RAI therapy is a reasonable and safe treatment for patients with advanced DTC. Despite the risk of radiation exposure, administration of low-activity RAI has not been associated with an increased risk of a secondary primary cancer (SPM), leukemia, infertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes, etc. However, depending on the cumulative dose, there is a risk of acute or delayed-onset adverse effects including salivary gland damage, dental caries, nasolacrimal duct obstruction, and SPM. Therefore, as with any treatment, the expected benefit must justify the use of RAI in patients with advanced DTC.