Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

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: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

Background: Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (KEAP1)–nuclear factor erythroid- 2-related factor 2 (NRF2) pathway is a major regulator protecting cells from oxidative and metabolic stress. Studies have revealed that this pathway is involved in mediating resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy and immunotherapy; however, its implications in oncogene-addicted tumors are largely unknown. This study aimed to elucidate whether this pathway could be a potential therapeutic target for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: We measured the baseline expression of NRF2 using EGFR-mutant parental cells and acquired gefitinib resistant cells. We investigated whether NRF2 inhibition affected cell death in vitro and tumor growth in vivo using a xenograft mouse model, and compared the transcriptional changes before and after NRF2 inhibition. Results: Baseline NRF2 expression was enhanced in PC9 and PC9 with gefitinib resistance (PC9/GR) cells than in other cell lines, with a more prominent expression in PC9/ GR. The NRF2 inhibitor induced NRF2 downregulation and cell death in a dose-dependent manner. Cotreatment with an NRF2 inhibitor enhanced osimertinib-induced cell death in vitro, and potentiated tumor growth inhibition in a PC9/GR xenograft model. Finally, RNA sequencing revealed that NRF2 inhibition resulted in the altered expression of multiple genes involved in various signaling pathways. Conclusion We identified that NRF2 inhibition enhanced cell death and inhibited tumor growth in tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-resistant lung cancer with EGFR-mutation. Thus, NRF2 modulation may be a novel therapeutic strategy to overcome the resistance to EGFR-TKIs.

Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.