Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

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: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is related to an increased risk of extrahepatic malignancy (EHM), and antiviral treatment is associated with an incidence of EHM comparable to controls. We compared the risks of EHM and intrahepatic malignancy (IHM) between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment. Methods: Using data from the National Health Insurance Service of Korea, this nationwide cohort study included treatment-naïve CHB patients who initiated ETV (n=24,287) or TDF (n=29,199) therapy between 2012 and 2014. The primary outcome was the development of any primary EHM. Secondary outcomes included overall IHM development. E-value was calculated to assess the robustness of results to unmeasured confounders. Results: The median follow-up duration was 5.9 years, and all baseline characteristics were well balanced after propensity score matching. EHM incidence rate differed significantly between within versus beyond 3 years in both groups (P<0.01, Davies test). During the first 3 years, EHM risk was comparable in the propensity score-matched cohort (5.88 versus 5.84/1,000 person-years; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]=1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88–1.17, P=0.84). After year 3, however, TDF was associated with a significantly lower EHM incidence compared to ETV (4.92 versus 6.91/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.70, 95% CI=0.60–0.81, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.21). Regarding IHM, the superiority of TDF over ETV was maintained both within (17.58 versus 20.19/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.88, 95% CI=0.81–0.95, P<0.01) and after year 3 (11.45 versus 16.20/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.68, 95% CI=0.62–0.75, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.30). Conclusions TDF was associated with approximately 30% lower risks of both EHM and IHM than ETV in CHB patients after 3 years of antiviral therapy.