Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a frequent phenotype of BRCA-mutanttumors. Tumors with BRCAness may show characteristics of BRCA-mutant tumors and respond to similar treatments. Next-generation sequencing is an efficient and cost-effective method for simultaneously sequencing multiple cancer susceptibility genes, surpassing conventional Sanger testing. Methods: A total of 148 women with TNBC were recruited from December 2015 to November 2018, as part of a sub-analysis based on the PEARLY trial data. Of them, 103 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT). The targeted genes related to hereditary cancers were sequenced using the 65-gene germline next-generation sequencing (gNGS) panel pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (P&LPs) were determined by Sanger sequencing. We examined the occurrence of pathologic complete remission (ypCR) in patients with P&LPs. Results: The patients’ median age was 47 years (range, 27–69 years). Twenty (13.7%) of 148 patients had P&LP in six genes, including BARD1 (n = 2), BRCA1 (n = 9), BRCA2 (n = 5), CHEK2 (n = 1), RAD51C (n = 1), and RAD51D (n = 2). Among the 103 patients with NCT, 43 (41.7%) achieved ypCR (P&LPs; 9 individuals vs. non-variants; 34 individuals). Among the 103 patients with NCT, 14 (9.3%) had P&LPs. Nine of 14 patients with P&LPs, including BARD1 (n = 2), BRCA1 (n = 4), BRCA2 (n = 1), RAD51C (n = 1), and RAD51D (n = 1), achieved ypCR, showing a trend toward statistical significance (p = 0.066). Conclusion Germline P&LP mutations in TNBC patients can be detected by gNGS. This panel test can identify BRCA and BRCAness mutations that may predict ypCR in TNBC.

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.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

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.

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.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

Cardio-oncology is a critical field due to the escalating significance of cardiovascular toxicity as a side effect of anti‑ cancer treatments. Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a prevalent condition associated with car‑ diovascular toxicity, necessitating effective strategies for prediction, monitoring, management, and tracking. This comprehensive review examines the definition and risk stratification of CTRCD, explores monitoring approaches during anticancer therapy, and highlights specific cardiovascular toxicities linked to various cancer treatments. These include anthracyclines, HER2-targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes therapies. Incorporating the Korean data, this review offers insights into the regional nuances in managing CTRCD. Using systematic follow-up incorporating cardiovascular imaging and biomarkers, a better understanding and management of CTRCD can be achieved, optimizing the cardiovascular health of both cancer patients and survivors.