Purpose: To develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-based personalized outcome prediction model for upper-urinary tract urothelial carcinoma patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy. Materials and Methods: Data from patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy between 2010 and 2020 across three hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. A model was developed using one tertiary center’s data and externally validated with data from two other hospitals. An AI model using XGBoost as risk estimator and bootstrapped Weibull Accelerated Failure Time model for 10-year survival probability was employed. Hyperparameter tuning used Optuna method. Model efficacy was assessed using concordance index, average Brier score, D-calibration, and six-month interval time-dependent area under the curve (AUC). Results: Of 1,039 patients, 627 qualified after excluding 50 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Model development used 564 patients (507 training, 57 test) with 9:1 stratified random split, plus 63 for internal validation and 362 for external validation. Significant parameters included preoperative glomerular filtration rate (p<0.001), hydroureteronephrosis (p=0.013), pathological N stage (p<0.001), concurrent carcinoma in situ (p<0.001), disease progression (p<0.001), and survival rate (p<0.001). Disease-free survival (DFS) model’s concordance index: internal validation 0.789, external validations 0.734 and 0.771. Overall survival (OS) model’s concordance index: internal validation 0.819, external validations 0.780 and 0.771. Mean time-dependent AUC was 0.66–0.77 for DFS and 0.67–0.80 for OS during 10-year periods. Conclusions AI-based model effectively predicts disease-free and OS outcomes for upper-urinary tract urothelial carcinoma patients with post-radical nephroureterectomy, showcasing robust performance across multicenter settings.

Background: There are limited long-term clinical outcome data comparing first-generation (1G) versus second-generation (2G) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD). We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of 1G- and 2G-DES in SVD patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over 10 years of clinical follow-up. Methods: A total of 2,312 consecutive patients with SVD who underwent PCI with 1G-DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 811) or 2G-DES (zotarolimus [Endeavor, Endeavor Resolute]- or everolimus-eluting stents [Promus Element, Xience], n = 1,082) were enrolled.After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups (538 pairs) were generated. Study endpoints included individual and composite clinical outcomes through 10 years. Results: During the 10-year follow-up, the 2G-DES group had lower incidences of myocardial infarction (MI; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.92; P = 0.028) and target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P = 0.021) than the 1G-DES group. Rates of total death, cardiac death, non-target vessel revascularization, stroke, major adverse cardiac events, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups. Conclusions In our single-center, all-comer registry, 2G-DES were associated with lower incidence rates of MI and TLR compared to 1G-DES in SVD patients over 10 years of followup, indicating a safer and more durable effect than 1G-DES.

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: and Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic options.

Background: and Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic options.

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.