Background: Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), a major metabolic complication of cancer, is often managed with bisphosphonates (BP) and, increasingly, with denosumab. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of denosumab with that of BP, with or without calcitonin, in treating HCM. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital from 2017 to 2022 and included 317 patients treated for HCM. Participants were divided into three treatment groups: denosumab, intravenous (IV) BP only, and IV BP combined with calcitonin. The primary outcomes measured were changes in calcium levels and the incidence of hypocalcemia. Analysis of covariance was used to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, type of malignancy, and the use of furosemide and steroids. Results: The mean participant age was 65 years, and 37.5% were female. After adjustment, both denosumab and IV BPs were found to effectively lower calcium levels. Denosumab led to a decrease of 2.0 mg/dL (−15.9%), while IV BP alone resulted in a reduction of 1.8 mg/dL (−13.9%). The largest reduction, of 2.7 mg/dL (−20.9%), occurred with IV BP and calcitonin. Both denosumab and IV BP+calcitonin yielded their lowest calcium levels within 48 hours, whereas the IV BP only group reached a nadir within 72 hours. Despite these differences in treatment effectiveness, hypocalcemia occurred significantly less frequently in the denosumab group compared to the other groups. Conclusion Denosumab and IV BP were similarly effective in reducing calcium levels. However, IV BP combined with calcitonin yielded a more rapid and pronounced decrease.

Background: Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), a major metabolic complication of cancer, is often managed with bisphosphonates (BP) and, increasingly, with denosumab. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of denosumab with that of BP, with or without calcitonin, in treating HCM. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital from 2017 to 2022 and included 317 patients treated for HCM. Participants were divided into three treatment groups: denosumab, intravenous (IV) BP only, and IV BP combined with calcitonin. The primary outcomes measured were changes in calcium levels and the incidence of hypocalcemia. Analysis of covariance was used to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, type of malignancy, and the use of furosemide and steroids. Results: The mean participant age was 65 years, and 37.5% were female. After adjustment, both denosumab and IV BPs were found to effectively lower calcium levels. Denosumab led to a decrease of 2.0 mg/dL (−15.9%), while IV BP alone resulted in a reduction of 1.8 mg/dL (−13.9%). The largest reduction, of 2.7 mg/dL (−20.9%), occurred with IV BP and calcitonin. Both denosumab and IV BP+calcitonin yielded their lowest calcium levels within 48 hours, whereas the IV BP only group reached a nadir within 72 hours. Despite these differences in treatment effectiveness, hypocalcemia occurred significantly less frequently in the denosumab group compared to the other groups. Conclusion Denosumab and IV BP were similarly effective in reducing calcium levels. However, IV BP combined with calcitonin yielded a more rapid and pronounced decrease.

Background: Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), a major metabolic complication of cancer, is often managed with bisphosphonates (BP) and, increasingly, with denosumab. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of denosumab with that of BP, with or without calcitonin, in treating HCM. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital from 2017 to 2022 and included 317 patients treated for HCM. Participants were divided into three treatment groups: denosumab, intravenous (IV) BP only, and IV BP combined with calcitonin. The primary outcomes measured were changes in calcium levels and the incidence of hypocalcemia. Analysis of covariance was used to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, type of malignancy, and the use of furosemide and steroids. Results: The mean participant age was 65 years, and 37.5% were female. After adjustment, both denosumab and IV BPs were found to effectively lower calcium levels. Denosumab led to a decrease of 2.0 mg/dL (−15.9%), while IV BP alone resulted in a reduction of 1.8 mg/dL (−13.9%). The largest reduction, of 2.7 mg/dL (−20.9%), occurred with IV BP and calcitonin. Both denosumab and IV BP+calcitonin yielded their lowest calcium levels within 48 hours, whereas the IV BP only group reached a nadir within 72 hours. Despite these differences in treatment effectiveness, hypocalcemia occurred significantly less frequently in the denosumab group compared to the other groups. Conclusion Denosumab and IV BP were similarly effective in reducing calcium levels. However, IV BP combined with calcitonin yielded a more rapid and pronounced decrease.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background: Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), a major metabolic complication of cancer, is often managed with bisphosphonates (BP) and, increasingly, with denosumab. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of denosumab with that of BP, with or without calcitonin, in treating HCM. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital from 2017 to 2022 and included 317 patients treated for HCM. Participants were divided into three treatment groups: denosumab, intravenous (IV) BP only, and IV BP combined with calcitonin. The primary outcomes measured were changes in calcium levels and the incidence of hypocalcemia. Analysis of covariance was used to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, type of malignancy, and the use of furosemide and steroids. Results: The mean participant age was 65 years, and 37.5% were female. After adjustment, both denosumab and IV BPs were found to effectively lower calcium levels. Denosumab led to a decrease of 2.0 mg/dL (−15.9%), while IV BP alone resulted in a reduction of 1.8 mg/dL (−13.9%). The largest reduction, of 2.7 mg/dL (−20.9%), occurred with IV BP and calcitonin. Both denosumab and IV BP+calcitonin yielded their lowest calcium levels within 48 hours, whereas the IV BP only group reached a nadir within 72 hours. Despite these differences in treatment effectiveness, hypocalcemia occurred significantly less frequently in the denosumab group compared to the other groups. Conclusion Denosumab and IV BP were similarly effective in reducing calcium levels. However, IV BP combined with calcitonin yielded a more rapid and pronounced decrease.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: To evaluate trends in the incidence and survival outcomes of endometrial cancer (EC) based on the year of diagnosis, stage, age, and histologic types. Methods: Women with primary EC diagnosed between 1999 and 2018, and who were followed up with until 2019, were identified from the Korea Central Cancer Registry using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision. The age-standardized rates (ASRs) of incidence, annual percent changes (APCs), and survival were estimated according to age, stage, histology, and year of diagnosis. Results: The ASR for EC increased from 2.38 per 100,000 in 1999 to 7.29 per 100,000 in 2018 across all histologic types (APCs of 9.82, 15.97, and 7.73 for endometrioid, serous, and clear cell, respectively, p<0.001). There were significant differences in the 5-year survival rates based on histology (90.9%, 55.0%, and 68.5% for endometrioid, serous, and clear cell, respectively, p<0.001), stage (93.4%, 77.0%, and 31.0% for localized, regional, and distant, respectively, p<0.001), and age (93.0% for <50 years and 80.6% for ≥50 years, p<0.001). The 5-year survival was significantly better in the group diagnosed between 2000 and 2018 (85.9%) than that in the 1999–2008 group (83.3%) (p<0.001). This trend was only observed for endometrioid cancer (p<0.001). Conclusion The incidence of EC increased across the all 3 subtypes. Survival of patients with endometrioid histology improved over the past two decades, but remained static for serous or clear cell histology. Healthcare strategies to prevent EC incidence in at-risk populations and apply effective treatments for high-risk histology are needed.