Background: s/Aims: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), such as totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD), is increasingly performed worldwide. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TLPD and RAPD, and compare the oncologic outcomes between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for malignant disease. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at two hospitals that followed similar oncological surgical principles, including the extent of resection. RAPD was performed at Seoul National University Hospital, and TLPD at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare oncologic outcomes between MIPD and OPD. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 332 RAPD and 178 TLPD were performed. The rates of Clavian–Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (19.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.816), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.647), and open conversions (6.6% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.163) were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time (341 minutes vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the RAPD group (11 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.034). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival rate was comparable between MIPD and OPD for overall malignant disease (58.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.180). Conclusions Both RAPD and TLPD are safe and feasible, and MIPD has clinical outcomes that are comparable to those of OPD. Although RAPD exhibits some advantages, its perioperative outcomes are similar to those associated with TLPD. A surgical method may be selected based on the convenience of surgical movements, medical costs, and operator experience.

Background: s/Aims: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), such as totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD), is increasingly performed worldwide. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TLPD and RAPD, and compare the oncologic outcomes between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for malignant disease. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at two hospitals that followed similar oncological surgical principles, including the extent of resection. RAPD was performed at Seoul National University Hospital, and TLPD at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare oncologic outcomes between MIPD and OPD. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 332 RAPD and 178 TLPD were performed. The rates of Clavian–Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (19.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.816), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.647), and open conversions (6.6% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.163) were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time (341 minutes vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the RAPD group (11 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.034). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival rate was comparable between MIPD and OPD for overall malignant disease (58.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.180). Conclusions Both RAPD and TLPD are safe and feasible, and MIPD has clinical outcomes that are comparable to those of OPD. Although RAPD exhibits some advantages, its perioperative outcomes are similar to those associated with TLPD. A surgical method may be selected based on the convenience of surgical movements, medical costs, and operator experience.

Background: s/Aims: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), such as totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD), is increasingly performed worldwide. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TLPD and RAPD, and compare the oncologic outcomes between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for malignant disease. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at two hospitals that followed similar oncological surgical principles, including the extent of resection. RAPD was performed at Seoul National University Hospital, and TLPD at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare oncologic outcomes between MIPD and OPD. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 332 RAPD and 178 TLPD were performed. The rates of Clavian–Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (19.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.816), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.647), and open conversions (6.6% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.163) were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time (341 minutes vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the RAPD group (11 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.034). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival rate was comparable between MIPD and OPD for overall malignant disease (58.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.180). Conclusions Both RAPD and TLPD are safe and feasible, and MIPD has clinical outcomes that are comparable to those of OPD. Although RAPD exhibits some advantages, its perioperative outcomes are similar to those associated with TLPD. A surgical method may be selected based on the convenience of surgical movements, medical costs, and operator experience.

Purpose: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common hematologic malignancy worldwide. Although substantial improvement has been achieved by the frontline rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy, up to 40%-50% of patients will eventually have relapsed or refractory disease, whose prognosis is extremely dismal. Materials and Methods: We have carried out two prospective cohort studies that include over 1,500 DLBCL patients treated with rituximab plus CHOP (#NCT01202448 and #NCT02474550). In the current report, we describe the outcomes of refractory DLBCL patients. Patients were defined to have refractory DLBCL if they met one of the followings, not achieving at least partial response after 4 or more cycles of R-CHOP; not achieving at least partial response after 2 or more cycles of salvage therapy; progressive disease within 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation. Results: Among 1,581 patients, a total of 260 patients met the criteria for the refractory disease after a median time to progression of 9.1 months. The objective response rate of salvage treatment was 26.4%, and the complete response rate was 9.6%. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval, 6.4 to 8.6), and the 2-year survival rate was 22.1%±2.8%. The median OS for each refractory category was not significantly different (p=0.529). Conclusion In line with the previous studies, the outcomes of refractory DLBCL patients were extremely poor, which necessitates novel approaches for this population.

Purpose: We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, prospective registry study for newly diagnosed patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) to better define the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in these patients. Materials and Methods: Patients with PTCL receiving chemotherapy with curative intent were registered and prospectively monitored. All patients were pathologically diagnosed with PTCL. Results: A total of 191 patients with PTCL were enrolled in this prospective registry study. PTCL, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) was the most common pathologic subtype (n=80, 41.9%), followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) (n=60, 31.4%). With a median follow-up duration of 3.9 years, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 39.5% and 60.4%, respectively. The role of upfront ASCT was evaluated in patients who were considered transplant-eligible (n=59). ASCT was performed as an upfront consolidative treatment in 32 (54.2%) of these patients. There were no significant differences in PFS and OS between the ASCT and non-ASCT groups for all patients (n=59) and for patients with PTCL-NOS (n=26). However, in patients with AITL, the ASCT group was associated with significantly better PFS than the non-ASCT group, although there was no significant difference in OS. Conclusion The current study demonstrated that the survival outcomes with the current treatment options remain poor for patients with PTCL-NOS. Upfront ASCT may provide a survival benefit for patients with AITL, but not PTCL-NOS.

Purpose: A three-drug combination of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CVD) shows significant efficacy and manageable toxicity as induction therapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Materials and Methods: In this phase II study, we enrolled 45 patients who achieved a very good partial response (VGPR) or partial response (PR) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of CVD consolidation. CVD consolidation comprised three cycles of cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 orally on days 1, 8, and 15, and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, along with dexamethasone 20 mg orally or intravenously on days 1 and 2, 8 and 9, 15 and 16, and 22 and 23. Results: At enrollment, 39 patients (86.7%) showed VGPR, and nine (13.3%) presented with PR. Nineteen patients (45.2%) achieved a complete response or better as their best response after the end of consolidation. Overall, 22 of 42 patients (52.4%) experienced an improved response status with CVD consolidation. Three-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were 89.0% and 42.7%, respectively. The most common non-hematologic toxicities were peripheral neuropathy and infection (20.5%), with no grade ≥ 3 neuropathy observed. Conclusion These results showed that CVD consolidation therapy improved the response with reasonable toxicity in patients with residual disease after ASCT. This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service, Republic of Korea (KCT0001327).

Background/Aims: This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of fluorescent antinuclear antibody (FANA)-positive patients admitted for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and identify FANA as a prognostic factor of mortality. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at a university-affiliated hospital with 1,048 beds from September 2020 to March 2022. The participants were consecutive patients who required oxygenation through a high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive or mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and conducted the FANA test within 48 hours of admission. Results: A total of 132 patients with severe COVID-19 were included in this study, of which 77 (58.3%) had FANA-positive findings (≥ 1:80). FANA-positive patients were older and had higher inflammatory markers and 28-day mortality than FANA- negative patients. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, FANA-positive findings (hazard ratio [HR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–6.74), age (per 1-year; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.10), underlying pulmonary disease (HR, 3.16; 95% CI, 0.97–10.26), underlying hypertension (HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.28–6.87), and blood urea nitrogen > 20 mg/dL (HR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.09–12.64) were independent predictors of 28-day mortality. Remdesivir (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15–0.74) was found to be an independent predictor that reduced mortality. Conclusions Our findings revealed an autoimmune phenomenon in patients with severe COVID-19, which provides an ancillary rationale for strategies to optimize immunosuppressive therapy. In particular, this study suggests the potential of FANA to predict the outcomes of COVID-19.

Purpose: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) has various characteristics according to anatomical, histologic classifications, and its prognoses are different. This study aimed to compare oncologic outcomes according to tumor location (second bile duct confluence) and evaluate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: Clinical data of 318 patients who underwent curative resection for ICC was reviewed. Central type ICC (C-ICC) and peripheral type ICC (P-ICC) were defined when the tumor invades the intrahepatic secondary biliary confluence and when located more peripherally, respectively. Results: A larger tumor size, higher rate of elevated CA 19-9 level, vascular invasion, R1 resection, advanced T stage, and lymph node metastasis were found in C-ICC. C-ICC had poorer overall survival (median, 33 months vs. 58 months; P = 0.001), and the difference was more prominent in the early stage. C-ICC had a higher recurrence rate (68.7% vs. 55.1%, P = 0.014); otherwise, there was no difference in the recurrence patterns. There were no survival benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy in the entire cohort, but there were benefits in advanced stages (T3–4, N1 stage), especially in C-ICC. Conclusion C-ICC has more aggressive tumor characteristics and poor survival compared to P-ICC. Adjuvant chemotherapy seems to have survival benefits in the advanced stages, especially in the central type.

Periventricular nodular heterotopia (PNH) is a neuronal migration disorder that occurs during early brain development. Patients with PNH may be asymptomatic and have normal intelligence; however, PNH is also known to cause various symptoms such as seizures, dyslexia, and cardiovascular anomalies. PNH is not commonly diagnosed during early infancy because of the lack of clinical manifestations during this period. We present the case of a female infant diagnosed with PNH based on brain magnetic resonance imaging, who had symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus that had to be ligated surgically and had prolonged feeding cyanosis with frequent apneic spells.

Purpose: Febrile neutropenia (FN) can cause suboptimal treatment and treatment-related mortality (TRM) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP). Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and we compared them with the PROCESS cohort (n=485). Results: Since January 2015, 986 patients with DLBCL were enrolled. Pegfilgrastim was administered at least once in 930 patients (94.3%), covering 90.3% of all cycles. FN developed in 137 patients (13.9%) in this cohort (23.7% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001), and 4.2% of all cycles (10.2% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001). Dose delay was less common (≥3 days: 18.1% vs. 23.7%, p=0.015; ≥5 days: 12.0% vs. 18.3%, p=0.023) in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The incidence of TRM (3.2% vs. 5.6%, p=0.047) and infection-related death (1.8% vs. 4.5%, p=0.004) was lower in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The 4-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of the two cohorts were not different (OS: 73.0% vs. 71.9%, p=0.545; PFS: 69.5% vs. 68.8%, p=0.616). However, in patients aged ≥75 years, the 4-year OS and PFS rates were higher in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort (OS: 49.6% vs. 33.7%, p=0.032; PFS: 44.2% vs. 30.3% p=0.047). Conclusion Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of FN and infection-related death in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and it also improves OS in patients aged ≥75 years.