Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

In light of the burgeoning successes of cancer immunotherapy, glioblastoma (GBM) remains refractory due to an immunosuppressive microenvironment originating from its molecular heterogeneity. Thus, identifying promising therapeutic targets for treating GBM and discovering methodologies to effectively regulate them is still a tremendous challenge. Here we describe photodynamic protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B) proteolysis mediated by a proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) nanoassembly. The PTP1B-targeting PROTAC is conjugated with a photosensitizer via a cathepsin B (Cat B)-cleavable peptide, which spontaneously forms nanoassemblies due to intermolecular π-π stacking interactions. In GBM models, PROTAC nanoassemblies significantly accumulate in the tumor region across the disrupted blood-brain barrier (BBB), triggering a burst release of the photosensitizer and active PROTAC by Cat B-mediated enzymatic cleavage. Upon laser irradiation, photodynamic therapy (PDT) synergizes with PROTAC-mediated PTP1B proteolysis to induce potent immunogenic cell death (ICD) in tumor cells. Subsequently, persistent PTP1B degradation by nanoassemblies in Cat B-overexpressed intratumoral T cells downregulates exhaustion markers, reinvigorating their functionality. These sequential processes of photodynamic PTP1B proteolysis ultimately augment T cell-mediated antitumor immunity as well as protective immunity, completely eradicating the primary GBM and preventing its recurrence. Overall, our findings underscore the therapeutic potential of combining PDT with PROTAC activity for GBM immunotherapy.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Barriers to treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in South Korea remain incompletely characterized. We analyze a nationwide prospective cohort to determine patient-level features associated with delayed presentation and non-treatment of potential IVT-eligible patients. Methods: We identified consecutive patients with AIS from 01/2011 to 08/2023 from a multicenter and prospective acute stroke registry in Korea. Patients were defined as IVT candidates if they presented within 4.5 hours from the last known well, had no lab evidence of coagulopathy, and had National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥ 4. Multivariable generalized linear mixed regression models were used to investigate the associations between their characteristics and the IVT candidates or the use of IVT among the candidates. Results: Among 84,103 AIS patients, 41.0% were female, with a mean age of 69 ± 13 years and presentation NIHSS of 4 [interquartile range, 1–8]. Out of these patients, 13,757 (16.4%) were eligible for IVT, of whom 8,179 (59.5%) received IVT. Female sex (adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.94) and lower years of education (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97 for 0–3 years, compared to ≥ 13 years) were associated with a decreased likelihood of presenting as eligible for IVT after AIS; meanwhile, young age (adjusted RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01–1.24 for ≤ 44 years, compared to 75–84 years) was associated with an increased likelihood of being an IVT candidate. Among those who were eligible for IVT, only age was significantly associated with the use of IVT (adjusted RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03–1.16 for age 65–74 and adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76–0.90 for ≥ 85 years, respectively). Conclusion Most patients with AIS present outside IVT eligibility in South Korea, and only 60% of eligible patients were ultimately treated. We identified increased age, female sex and lower education as key features on which to focus interventions for improving IVT utilization.

Background: Barriers to treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in South Korea remain incompletely characterized. We analyze a nationwide prospective cohort to determine patient-level features associated with delayed presentation and non-treatment of potential IVT-eligible patients. Methods: We identified consecutive patients with AIS from 01/2011 to 08/2023 from a multicenter and prospective acute stroke registry in Korea. Patients were defined as IVT candidates if they presented within 4.5 hours from the last known well, had no lab evidence of coagulopathy, and had National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥ 4. Multivariable generalized linear mixed regression models were used to investigate the associations between their characteristics and the IVT candidates or the use of IVT among the candidates. Results: Among 84,103 AIS patients, 41.0% were female, with a mean age of 69 ± 13 years and presentation NIHSS of 4 [interquartile range, 1–8]. Out of these patients, 13,757 (16.4%) were eligible for IVT, of whom 8,179 (59.5%) received IVT. Female sex (adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.94) and lower years of education (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97 for 0–3 years, compared to ≥ 13 years) were associated with a decreased likelihood of presenting as eligible for IVT after AIS; meanwhile, young age (adjusted RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01–1.24 for ≤ 44 years, compared to 75–84 years) was associated with an increased likelihood of being an IVT candidate. Among those who were eligible for IVT, only age was significantly associated with the use of IVT (adjusted RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03–1.16 for age 65–74 and adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76–0.90 for ≥ 85 years, respectively). Conclusion Most patients with AIS present outside IVT eligibility in South Korea, and only 60% of eligible patients were ultimately treated. We identified increased age, female sex and lower education as key features on which to focus interventions for improving IVT utilization.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.