Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Background: We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score. Results: The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar. Conclusion The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.

Purpose: Non-operative management (NOM) has emerged as a promising organ-preserving strategy for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). However, no standardized treatment protocol has been established for watch-and-wait strategies. Materials and Methods: This prospective study evaluated oncological outcomes of NOM combined with 4 months of adjuvant capecitabine. Patients with resectable rectal cancer (≤ 8 cm from the anal verge, cT2-4 or N+) underwent CRT (50-54 Gy in 25-27 fractions with capecitabine). Eight weeks post-CRT, a multidisciplinary team assessed cCR. Patients achieving cCR received six cycles of capecitabine (2 weeks on/1 week off) and were actively monitored. Results: Among 89 patients receiving CRT (2018-2023), 17 (19.1%) achieved cCR and were included. The median age was 65 years, and 64.7% were male. Eleven (64.7%) completed all six cycles of adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 31.4 months, 11 patients (64.7%) remained disease-free. Local regrowth occurred in six patients (35.3%) with 2- and 4-year rates of 34.5% and 47.6%, respectively. Five underwent radical surgery, and one received transanal excision with systemic chemotherapy. At the time of assessment, 15 patients (88.2%) showed no evidence of disease, while two (11.8%) received palliative chemotherapy. All patients were alive. Conclusion NOM with adjuvant capecitabine showed promising oncological outcomes, offering an alternative to passive watch-and-wait approaches. Further refinement through multidisciplinary strategies is warranted.

Background: Studies on whether donor-to-recipient sex match status affects long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) have yielded contradictory results. This study evaluated whether donor-to-recipient sex match status influenced long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high-volume center. Methods: The study included 6,664 patients who underwent primary LT between January 2000 and December 2022 at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups according to donor-to-recipient sex match status: male-to-male (n=3,427 [51.4%]), male-to-female (n=1,152 [17.3%]), female-to-male (n=1,385 [20.8%]), and female-to-female (n=700 [10.5%]). Results: Regarding clinical characteristics, the four groups differed significantly regarding background liver disease (P<0.001), model for end-stage liver disease score (P<0.001), serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II level (P=0.003), presence of concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; P<0.001), and type of LT (P=0.003). Overall survival (OS) of all LT recipients did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.377). Donor-to-recipient sex match status did not affect long-term OS in either LDLT (P=0.176) or DDLT (P=0.220) groups. In addition, sex match status did not significantly influence posttransplant OS among patients who underwent LDLT without HCC (P=0.464), LDLT with HCC (P=0.236), DDLT without HCC (P=0.338), or DDLT with HCC (P=0.818). Conclusions Donor-to-recipient sex match status does not significantly affect posttransplant patient survival or HCC prognosis after LDLT or DDLT.

Purpose: Huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses significant treatment and prognosis challenges. This study aimed to determine whether preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for huge HCC is necessary. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated 435 patients with huge HCC who underwent upfront hepatectomy or hepatectomy after preoperative TACE from January 2009 to December 2018. TACE’s impact on survival and prognostic factors, including microvascular invasion (MVI) and satellite nodules (SNs), was analyzed. Results: The preoperative TACE group (n = 33) had a lower incidence of MVI (P = 0.009) and higher postoperative morbidity (P = 0.001), particularly pleural effusion (P = 0.004) and Clavien-Dindo class III–IV complications (P = 0.033), compared with the upfront hepatectomy group (n = 402). Short-term mortality (P = 0.828) and recurrence within 6 months (P = 0.654) were comparable between groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival curves showed no significant between-group differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.172) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.450). Local regional therapy for intrahepatic recurrences and surgical resection for extrahepatic recurrences were associated with better OS. MVI, SN, and hepatic vein tumor thrombosis were identified as significant risk factors for poorer RFS and OS. In patients without SN, preoperative TACE improved RFS (P = 0.039) but not OS. Conclusion Preoperative TACE for huge HCC was associated with reduced MVI but did not improve RFS and OS. Survival outcomes were more significantly influenced by SN, suggesting that upfront hepatectomy without TACE should be prioritized.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.