Purpose: Bladder preservation chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) following cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a promising treatment strategy for muscle-invasive bladder urothelial carcinoma (MIBC). A combined analysis of raw data from two prospective phase II studies was performed to better evaluate the feasibility of selective bladder preservation CRT. Materials and Methods: The analysis was based on primary efficacy data from two independent studies, including 76 MIBC patients receiving NAC followed by bladder preservation CRT. The efficacy data included metastasis-free survival (MFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). For the present analysis, starting point of survival was defined as the date of commencing CRT. Results: Among 76 patients, 66 had a cCR following NAC. Sixty-four patients received gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) combination chemotherapy in neoadjuvant setting, and 12 received nivolumab plus GC. Bladder preservation CRT following NAC was generally well-tolerated, with low urinary tract symptoms being the most common late complication. With a median follow-up of 64 months, recurrence was recorded in 43 patients (57%): intravesical only (n=20), metastatic only (n=16), and both (n=7). In 27 patients with intravesical recurrence, transurethral resection, and Bacillus Calmette-Guerin treatment was given to 17 patients. Salvage cystectomy was performed in 10 patients. Median DFS was 46.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.1 to 67.5) months, and the median MFS was not reached. Neither DFS nor MFS appeared to be affected by any of the baseline characteristics. However, DFS was significantly longer in patients with a cCR than in those without (hazard ratio, 0.465; 95% CI, 0.222 to 0.976). Conclusion The strategy of NAC followed by selective bladder preservation CRT based on the cCR is feasible in the treatment of MIBC. A standardized definition of cCR is needed to better assess disease status post-NAC.

Purpose: TFE3-rearranged/TFEB-altered renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a rare subtype of RCC. Due to its rarity, there is an unmet medical need for effective therapies in advanced settings. The study aims to investigate the clinical and histopathological characteristics of patients with microphthalmia transcription factor family/ transcription factor E (MiTF/TFE) translocation RCC and the clinical outcomes of systemic therapies, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective study. We identified 32 eligible patients among a total of 37 patients diagnosed with MiTF/TFE translocation RCC between January 2004 and September 2021, and the study included 9 patients who were treated with systemic therapies. We collected data on clinical characteristics, targeted sequencing, and clinical outcomes. Results: The median age of the 32 patients was 45.5 years. Histologically, 26 patients (81.3%) had TFE3-rearranged RCC, and only 1 patient (3.1%) had TFEB-altered RCC. Curative or cytoreductive nephrectomy was performed in all 27 patients (84.4%), and 4 patients (12.6%) were diagnosed with metastatic disease at the time of the initial diagnosis. Nine patients (28.1%) were treated with systemic therapy with TKIs, 2 (6.3%) of whom received simultaneous TKI and ICI treatment. The response to systemic therapy (TKI or ICI) and duration of response ranged from complete response to progressive disease. Excluding 1 patient who was treated with a TKI in the adjuvant setting, the overall response rate in 8 metastatic patients was 50% and the complete response rate was 37.5%. The median follow-up period was 29 months. The median progressionfree survival was 21 months, median overall survival was not achieved, and 2 deaths occurred. Conclusions Our findings suggest that TKI for treatment for metastatic TFE3-rearranged RCC is efficacious, with an overall response rate of 50% and a median progression-free survival of 21 months.

Objective: Clozapine is considered the most reliable drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. In 2014, a generic formulation of clozapine (Clzapine) was introduced in Korea. This study was performed to provide clinical information regarding the use of clozapine and to compare efficacy and tolerability when converting from the brand-name formulation (Clozaril) to the generic formulation during longterm maintenance treatment among Korean patients with schizophrenia. Methods: This mirror-image study retrospectively investigated the electronic medical records of patients who had switched from Clozaril to Clzapine with a ≥1-year duration for each formulation. Clinical data were collected, including information regarding clozapine use, psychiatric hospitalization, co-medications, and blood test findings. Data before and after the switch were compared using paired t-tests. Results: Among 332 patients, the mean 1-year dosages were 233.32±149.35 mg/day for Clozaril and 217.36±136.66 mg/day for Clzapine. The mean clozapine concentration-to-dose ratios were similar before and after the switch (Clozaril, 1.33±0.68; Clzapine, 1.26±0.80). Switching from Clozaril to Clzapine resulted in no significant differences in the hospitalization rate, hospitalization duration, or laboratory findings (liver function parameters, serum cholesterol level, and serum glucose level). Equivalent doses of co-prescribed antidepressants were decreased, but concomitant medications otherwise showed no significant differences. Conclusion Clinical efficacy and tolerability appear comparable when switching to Clzapine during clozapine maintenance treatment. This study offers descriptive real-world clinical insights into clozapine maintenance treatment in Korea, thereby providing patients with more treatment options and contributing to the development of maintenance guidelines tailored to the Korean population.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a shortage of medical resources and the need for proper treatment guidelines for brain tumor patients became more pressing. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. As part II of the guideline, this consensus survey is to suggest management options in specific clinical scenarios during the crisis period. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group consisted of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to confirm a consensus reached by the experts, opinions on 5 specific clinical scenarios about the management of brain tumor patients during the crisis period were devised and asked. To build-up the consensus process, Delphi method was employed. Results: The summary of the final consensus from each scenario are as follows. For patients with newly diagnosed astrocytoma with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant and oligodendroglioma with IDH-mutant/1p19q codeleted, observation was preferred for patients with low-risk, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) ≥60, while adjuvant radiotherapy alone was preferred for patients with high-risk, WHO grade 2, and KPS ≥60. For newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma, the most preferred adjuvant treatment strategy after surgery was radiotherapy plus temozolomide except for patients aged ≥70 years with KPS of 60 and unmethylated MGMT promoters. In patients with symptomatic brain metastasis, the preferred treatment differed according to the number of brain metastasis and performance status. For patients with newly diagnosed atypical meningioma, adjuvant radiation was deferred in patients with older age, poor performance status, complete resection, or low mitotic count. Conclusion It is imperative that proper medical care for brain tumor patients be sustained and provided, even during the crisis period. The findings of this consensus survey will be a useful reference in determining appropriate treatment options for brain tumor patients in the specific clinical scenarios covered by the survey during the future crisis.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for appropriate treatment guidelines for patients with brain tumors was indispensable due to the lack and limitations of medical resources. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group was composed of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to reach consensus among the experts, the Delphi method was used to build up the final recommendations. Results: All participating experts completed the series of surveys, and the results of final survey were used to draft the current consensus recommendations. Priority levels of surgery and radiotherapy during crises were proposed using appropriate time window-based criteria for management outcome. The highest priority for surgery is assigned to patients who are life-threatening or have a risk of significant impact on a patient’s prognosis unless immediate intervention is given within 24–48 hours. As for the radiotherapy, patients who are at risk of compromising their overall survival or neurological status within 4–6 weeks are assigned to the highest priority. Curative-intent chemotherapy has the highest priority, followed by neoadjuvant/adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy during a crisis period. Telemedicine should be actively considered as a management tool for brain tumor patients during the mass infection crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion It is crucial that adequate medical care for patients with brain tumors is maintained and provided, even during times of crisis. This guideline will serve as a valuable resource, assisting in the delivery of treatment to brain tumor patients in the event of any future crisis.

Background: Coronary artery calcium score (CACS) has become an important tool for evaluating cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study evaluated the significance of CACS for future CVD through more than 10 years of follow-up in asymptomatic Korean populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) known to have a relatively low CACS burden. Methods: We enrolled 981 asymptomatic T2DM patients without CVD at baseline who underwent CACS evaluation using multidetector computed tomography between January 2008 and December 2014. They were grouped into five predefined CACS categories based on Agatston scores and followed up by August 2020. The primary endpoint was incident CVD events, including coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral arterial disease. Results: The relative risk of CVD was significantly higher in patients with CACS ≥10, and the significance persisted after adjustment for known confounders. A higher CACS category indicated a higher incidence of future CVD: hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) 4.09 (1.79 to 9.36), 12.00 (5.61 to 25.69), and 38.79 (16.43 to 91.59) for 10≤ CACS <100, 100≤ CACS <400, and CACS ≥400, respectively. During the 12-year follow-up period, the difference in event-free survival more than doubled as the category increased. Patients with CACS below 10 had very low CVD incidence throughout the follow-up. The receiver operating characteristic analysis showed better area under curve when the CACS cutoff was 10 than 100. Conclusion CACS can be a sensitive marker of CVD risk. Specifically, CACS above 10 is an indicator of CVD high-risk requiring more intensive medical treatment in Koreans with T2DM.

Purpose: This post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted to monitor the usage of axitinib (Inlyta) in clinical practice of Korean patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with disease progression during or after a prior systemic therapy in real world. Materials and Methods: In this multicenter, observational study, patients indicated for oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily as second-line therapy for advanced RCC were followed up under routine clinical practices, and their safety and effectiveness outcomes were collected. Results: Between 2012 and 2021, 125 patients were enrolled, and data from 111 patients were analyzed. Median age was 65 years (range, 30 to 84 years), 81% was male, and 110 (99%) had clear cell RCC. The median daily dose of axitinib was 10 mg (range, 4.36 to 15.95 mg) with a median administration period of 5.6 months (range, 15 to 750 days). Eighty-three percentage of patients experienced any grade of adverse events, 71% of which were related to study treatment, including diarrhea (36%), hypertension (21%), stomatitis (17%), decreased appetite (14%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (12%), and asthenia (11%). Most adverse events were generally well tolerated and manageable, with 13% of grade ≥ 3. Axitinib dose reduction was required in 20% of the adverse events and discontinuation in 8%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 18.9). Objective responses were observed in 30% of patients (95% CI, 21 to 39) with 4% of complete response and 26% of partial response. Conclusion No new safety signal was found in the present PMS study of Korean RCC patients. Axitinib showed consistent outcomes in terms of effectiveness and safety confirming that the drug is a valid option for second-line therapy in patients with advanced RCC in a real-world setting.

Purpose: The activity and safety of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus gemcitabine/cisplatin (N+GC) were tested in patients with muscle-invasive bladder urothelial carcinoma (MIBC). Materials and Methods: In a prospective phase II trial, patients with cT2-T4a N0 MIBC who were eligible for cisplatin and medically appropriate to undergo radical cystectomy (RC) were enrolled. Treatment with nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 plus GC (cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1, and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) was repeated every 28 days up to 3 or 4 cycles, depending on the surgery schedules. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0). Secondary endpoints included pathologic downstaging (≤ ypT1), disease-free survival (DFS), and safety. Results: Between September 2019 and October 2020, 51 patients were enrolled. Neoadjuvant N+GC was well tolerated. Among 49 patients who completed neoadjuvant N+GC, clinical complete response (cCR) was achieved in 59% of intent-to-treat (ITT) population. RC was performed in 34 (69%) patients. pCR was achieved in 24% (12/49) of ITT population and 35% (12/34) of RC patients. Median DFS was not reached. Over a median follow-up of 24 months, 12 patients experienced disease recurrence and were treated with palliative therapy or surgery. Although 12 patients declined surgery and were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, DFS was longer in patients with cCR after neoadjuvant therapy than those without. Preoperative programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) did not correlate with pCR or pathologic downstaging rates. Conclusion Neoadjuvant N+GC was feasible and provided meaningful pathologic responses in patients with MIBC, regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (ONO-4538-X41; CRIS.nih.go.kr, KCT0003804).

In the 2022 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Ovarian cancer: long-term follow-up data, new poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, overall survival (OS) issues with PARP inhibitor monotherapy, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and antibody-drug conjugate; 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in early stage disease, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Corpus cancer: follow-up regimen, immune checkpoint inhibitor, WEE1 inhibitor, selective inhibitor of nuclear export. A special note was made on the withdrawal of PARP inhibitor from the market for heavily pretreated ovarian cancer patients based on the final OS results of ARIEL-4 and SOLO-3 due to concerns of increased risk of death.

Purpose: There have been few reports on comparison between sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy in Korean metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We sought to analyze the treatment trends of metastatic ccRCC by comparing the effects and adverse events of sunitinib and pazopanib. Materials and Methods: Data of 357 metastatic RCC patients who received the sunitinib or pazopanib as the first-line targeted therapy from the Daegyeong Oncology Study Group database was obtained and analyzed. Among these patients, patients who only clear cell type was confirmed after needle biopsy or nephrectomy were included, and patients who underwent target therapy for less than 3 months were excluded. Results: Of 251 patients who met the inclusion criteria, sunitinib and pazopanib group were identified in 156 (62%) and 95 patients (38%), respectively. Pazopanib group was older (66 years vs. 61 years, p=0.001) and more symptomatic (65% vs. 52%, p=0.037) and had more patients with Karnofsky performance status <80 (20% vs. 11%, p=0.048) and fewer number of organ metastases (p=0.004) compared to sunitinib group. There was no significant difference in disease control rate (88.5% vs. 87.3%, p=0.744), the median progression-free survival (19 months vs. 15 months, p=0.444) and overall survival (25 months vs. 19 months, p=0.721) between sunitinib and pazopanib. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events with sunitinib and pazopanib were anemia (5%) and hand-foot syndrome (3%), respectively. There was no significant difference between sunitinib and pazopanib in number of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events (15% vs. 11%, p=0.275). However, there were more patients who discontinued treatment due to only adverse events in sunitinib group compared to pazopanib group (12% vs. 3%, p=0.020). Conclusions In Korean metastatic ccRCC, pazopanib tended to be used in patients with poorer health status compared to sunitinib. Sunitinib and pazopanib had no significant difference in treatment effect and survival, but pazopanib had more tolerable adverse events.