Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

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.

Background/Aims: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is characterized by fat accumulation in the liver. MASLD encompasses both steatosis and MASH. Since MASH can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer, steatosis and MASH must be distinguished during patient treatment. Here, we investigate the genomes, epigenomes, and transcriptomes of MASLD patients to identify signature gene set for more accurate tracking of MASLD progression. Methods: Biopsy-tissue and blood samples from patients with 134 MASLD, comprising 60 steatosis and 74 MASH patients were performed omics analysis. SVM learning algorithm were used to calculate most predictive features. Linear regression was applied to find signature gene set that distinguish the stage of MASLD and to validate their application into independent cohort of MASLD. Results: After performing WGS, WES, WGBS, and total RNA-seq on 134 biopsy samples from confirmed MASLD patients, we provided 1,955 MASLD-associated features, out of 3,176 somatic variant callings, 58 DMRs, and 1,393 DEGs that track MASLD progression. Then, we used a SVM learning algorithm to analyze the data and select the most predictive features. Using linear regression, we identified a signature gene set capable of differentiating the various stages of MASLD and verified it in different independent cohorts of MASLD and a liver cancer cohort. Conclusions We identified a signature gene set (i.e., CAPG, HYAL3, WIPI1, TREM2, SPP1, and RNASE6) with strong potential as a panel of diagnostic genes of MASLD-associated disease.

Objective: To investigate whether reader training improves the performance and agreement of radiologists in interpreting unenhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Materials and Methods: A study of 96 breasts (35 cancers, 24 benign, and 37 negative) in 48 asymptomatic women was performed between June 2019 and October 2020. High-resolution DWI with b-values of 0, 800, and 1200 sec/mm 2 was performed using a 3.0-T system. Sixteen breast radiologists independently reviewed the DWI, apparent diffusion coefficient maps, and T1-weighted MRI scans and recorded the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category for each breast. After a 2-h training session and a 5-month washout period, they re-evaluated the BI-RADS categories. A BI-RADS category of 4 (lesions with at least two suspicious criteria) or 5 (more than two suspicious criteria) was considered positive.The per-breast diagnostic performance of each reader was compared between the first and second reviews. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using a multi-rater κ analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Before training, the mean sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 16 readers were 70.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59.4–79.9), 90.8% (95% CI: 85.6–94.2), and 83.5% (95% CI: 78.6–87.4), respectively. After training, significant improvements in specificity (95.2%; 95% CI: 90.8–97.5; P = 0.001) and accuracy (85.9%; 95% CI: 80.9–89.8; P = 0.01) were observed, but no difference in sensitivity (69.8%; 95% CI: 58.1–79.4; P = 0.58) was observed. Regarding inter-reader agreement, the κ values were 0.57 (95% CI: 0.52–0.63) before training and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62–0.74) after training, with a difference of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.02–0.18; P = 0.01). The ICC was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69–0.74) before training and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76–0.80) after training (P = 0.002). Conclusion Brief reader training improved the performance and agreement of interpretations by breast radiologists using unenhanced MRI with DWI.

Purpose: To compare the prognosis of patients with axillary adenocarcinoma from an unknown primary (ACUPax) origin with negative MRI results and those with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Materials and Methods: The breast MRI images of 32 patients with ACUPax without signs of primary breast cancer on mammography and ultrasound (US) were analyzed. Spot compression-magnification mammography and second-look US were performed for the area of MRI abnormality in patients with positive results; any positive findings corresponding to the MRI abnormality were confirmed by biopsy. If suspicious MRI lesions could not be localized on mammography or US, MR-guided biopsy or excision biopsy after MR-guided localization was performed. We compared the prognosis of patients with negative breast MRI with that for patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Results: Primary breast cancers were confirmed in 8 (25%) patients after breast MRI. Primary breast cancers were not detected on MRI in 24 (75%) patients, including five cases of false-positive MRI results. Twenty-three patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) followed by whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) and chemotherapy (n=17) or subsequent chemotherapy only (n=2). Recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur during follow up in 7/8 patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers and 22/24 patients with negative MRI results. Regional recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur in any MR-negative patient who received adjuvant chemotherapy after ALND and WBRT. Conclusion The prognoses of MR-negative patients with ACUPax who received ALND and WBRT followed by chemotherapy were as good as those of patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers.

We present our initial experience of ultrasound (US)-guided localization of clipped metastatic axillary lymph nodes (LNs) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We evaluated US visibility and the successful excision rate of clipped LN after NAC in 29 consecutive patients with breast cancer. US-guided localization of clipped nodes was performed in 22 patients on the day of surgery, while seven patients underwent surgery without localization. The clips were identified in all patients with residual metastatic LNs and 6 of 12 (50%) patients without residual metastatic LNs on US. Six patients without visible clips underwent US-guided localization at the presumed previous clip insertion site. The successful excision rate of 22 LNs with localization was 100% (even though 3 of them were non-sentinel LNs) and 57% (4/7) without localization. Regardless of the presence of visible residual metastatic LNs on US after NAC, successful excision of the clipped LN with US-guided localization is feasible.