Background/Aims: Inaccurate prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) may lead to unnecessary surgery following endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to validate the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) models for predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC. Methods: We analyzed the clinical data, laboratory results, pathological reports, and endoscopic findings of patients who underwent radical surgery for T1 CRC. We developed AI models to predict LNM using four algorithms: regularized logistic regression classifier (RLRC), random forest classifier (RFC), CatBoost classifier (CBC), and the voting classifier (VC). Four histological factors and four endoscopic findings were included to develop AI models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were measured to distinguish AI model performance in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines. Results: Among 1,386 patients with T1 CRC, 173 patients (12.5%) had LNM. The AUROC values of the RLRC, RFC, CBC, and VC models for LNM prediction were significantly higher (0.673, 0.640, 0.679, and 0.677, respectively) than the 0.525 suggested in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines (vs RLRC, p<0.001; vs RFC, p=0.001; vs CBC, p<0.001; vs VC, p<0.001). The AUROC value was similar between T1 colon versus T1 rectal cancers (0.718 vs 0.615, p=0.700). The AUROC value was also similar between the initial endoscopic resection and initial surgery groups (0.581 vs 0.746, p=0.845). Conclusions AI models trained on the basis of endoscopic findings and pathological features performed well in predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC regardless of tumor location and initial treatment method.

Background/Aims: Inaccurate prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) may lead to unnecessary surgery following endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to validate the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) models for predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC. Methods: We analyzed the clinical data, laboratory results, pathological reports, and endoscopic findings of patients who underwent radical surgery for T1 CRC. We developed AI models to predict LNM using four algorithms: regularized logistic regression classifier (RLRC), random forest classifier (RFC), CatBoost classifier (CBC), and the voting classifier (VC). Four histological factors and four endoscopic findings were included to develop AI models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were measured to distinguish AI model performance in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines. Results: Among 1,386 patients with T1 CRC, 173 patients (12.5%) had LNM. The AUROC values of the RLRC, RFC, CBC, and VC models for LNM prediction were significantly higher (0.673, 0.640, 0.679, and 0.677, respectively) than the 0.525 suggested in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines (vs RLRC, p<0.001; vs RFC, p=0.001; vs CBC, p<0.001; vs VC, p<0.001). The AUROC value was similar between T1 colon versus T1 rectal cancers (0.718 vs 0.615, p=0.700). The AUROC value was also similar between the initial endoscopic resection and initial surgery groups (0.581 vs 0.746, p=0.845). Conclusions AI models trained on the basis of endoscopic findings and pathological features performed well in predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC regardless of tumor location and initial treatment method.

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/Aims: Inaccurate prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) may lead to unnecessary surgery following endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to validate the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) models for predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC. Methods: We analyzed the clinical data, laboratory results, pathological reports, and endoscopic findings of patients who underwent radical surgery for T1 CRC. We developed AI models to predict LNM using four algorithms: regularized logistic regression classifier (RLRC), random forest classifier (RFC), CatBoost classifier (CBC), and the voting classifier (VC). Four histological factors and four endoscopic findings were included to develop AI models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were measured to distinguish AI model performance in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines. Results: Among 1,386 patients with T1 CRC, 173 patients (12.5%) had LNM. The AUROC values of the RLRC, RFC, CBC, and VC models for LNM prediction were significantly higher (0.673, 0.640, 0.679, and 0.677, respectively) than the 0.525 suggested in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines (vs RLRC, p<0.001; vs RFC, p=0.001; vs CBC, p<0.001; vs VC, p<0.001). The AUROC value was similar between T1 colon versus T1 rectal cancers (0.718 vs 0.615, p=0.700). The AUROC value was also similar between the initial endoscopic resection and initial surgery groups (0.581 vs 0.746, p=0.845). Conclusions AI models trained on the basis of endoscopic findings and pathological features performed well in predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC regardless of tumor location and initial treatment method.

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/Aims: Inaccurate prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) may lead to unnecessary surgery following endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to validate the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) models for predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC. Methods: We analyzed the clinical data, laboratory results, pathological reports, and endoscopic findings of patients who underwent radical surgery for T1 CRC. We developed AI models to predict LNM using four algorithms: regularized logistic regression classifier (RLRC), random forest classifier (RFC), CatBoost classifier (CBC), and the voting classifier (VC). Four histological factors and four endoscopic findings were included to develop AI models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were measured to distinguish AI model performance in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines. Results: Among 1,386 patients with T1 CRC, 173 patients (12.5%) had LNM. The AUROC values of the RLRC, RFC, CBC, and VC models for LNM prediction were significantly higher (0.673, 0.640, 0.679, and 0.677, respectively) than the 0.525 suggested in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines (vs RLRC, p<0.001; vs RFC, p=0.001; vs CBC, p<0.001; vs VC, p<0.001). The AUROC value was similar between T1 colon versus T1 rectal cancers (0.718 vs 0.615, p=0.700). The AUROC value was also similar between the initial endoscopic resection and initial surgery groups (0.581 vs 0.746, p=0.845). Conclusions AI models trained on the basis of endoscopic findings and pathological features performed well in predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC regardless of tumor location and initial treatment method.

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: Currently, non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy has been suggested as the optimal antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) beyond one year after coronary revascularization. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between NOAC monotherapy and NOAC plus antiplatelet combination therapy using realworld data. Methods: Between 2015 and 2020, patients with AF who had received NOACs beyond one year after coronary revascularization were enrolled from Korean national insurance data. We emulated a pragmatic sequence of trials between the NOAC monotherapy and the antiplatelet combination therapy followed by propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Results: Among 206,407 person-trials from 4,465 individuals, we compared 3,275 pairs of the monotherapy and the matched combination therapy. During a median follow-up of 1.24 years, the incidence rate of MACCE was 19.4% and 20.0% per patient-year in the monotherapy group and the antiplatelet combination group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.05; P = 0.422). Compared with the antiplatelet combination group, the monotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence rate of major bleeding, defined as intracranial bleeding or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization (2.8% vs. 3.6% per patient-year; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62–0.97; P = 0.024). Conclusion As an antithrombotic therapy for AF beyond one year after coronary revascularization, NOAC monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of MACCE and a lower risk of major bleeding compared to NOAC plus antiplatelet combination therapy.