The anticancer drugs have evolved significantly, spanning molecular targeted therapeutics (MTTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Complications associated with these drugs vary widely based on their mechanisms of action. MTTs that target angiogenesis can often lead to complications related to ischemia or endothelial damage across various organs, whereas non-anti-angiogenic MTTs present unique complications derived from their specific pharmacological actions. ICIs are predominantly associated with immunerelated adverse events, such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, thyroid disorders, hypophysitis, and sarcoid-like reactions. CAR-T therapy causes unique and severe complications including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. ADCs tend to cause complications associated with cytotoxic payloads. A comprehensive understanding of these drug-specific toxicities, particularly using medical imaging, is essential for providing optimal patient care. Based on this knowledge, radiologists can play a pivotal role in multidisciplinary teams. Therefore, radiologists must stay up-to-date on the imaging characteristics of these complications and the mechanisms underlying novel anticancer drugs.

Purpose: The immunological response and adverse effects of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) in patients receiving coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of these vaccines on AAV disease activity. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 52 patients with AAV who had received at least second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and evaluated their immunogenicity by measuring the anti-spike (S) antibody (Ab) titer levels using the Roche Elecsys® immunoassay. Responses to the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) tool and 36-Item Short Form Survey before and after vaccination were obtained to assess AAV disease activity. Vaccine reactivity was measured using a standardized questionnaire. Results: We enrolled 52 patients with AAV. No differences were found between those who received second and third doses of vaccination in terms of AAV type, disease activity, vaccine type, or the use of immunosuppressive agents, including steroids. The median anti-S Ab titer was 3967.0 after third doses compared to 419.0 after second doses (p=0.001). Except for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), when immunosuppressants were administered in conjunction with steroids, the Ab titer was higher after the third vaccination than that after the second dose. The BVAS remained unchanged before and after second and third doses. No life-threatening adverse events were reported. Conclusion Although COVID-19 vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies in patients taking MMF, the vaccine did not exacerbate disease activity or cause severe side effects. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines should be considered in patients with AAV.

The anticancer drugs have evolved significantly, spanning molecular targeted therapeutics (MTTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Complications associated with these drugs vary widely based on their mechanisms of action. MTTs that target angiogenesis can often lead to complications related to ischemia or endothelial damage across various organs, whereas non-anti-angiogenic MTTs present unique complications derived from their specific pharmacological actions. ICIs are predominantly associated with immunerelated adverse events, such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, thyroid disorders, hypophysitis, and sarcoid-like reactions. CAR-T therapy causes unique and severe complications including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. ADCs tend to cause complications associated with cytotoxic payloads. A comprehensive understanding of these drug-specific toxicities, particularly using medical imaging, is essential for providing optimal patient care. Based on this knowledge, radiologists can play a pivotal role in multidisciplinary teams. Therefore, radiologists must stay up-to-date on the imaging characteristics of these complications and the mechanisms underlying novel anticancer drugs.

Background/Aims: To determine the effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus reduced-intensity therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL), this retrospective study compared treatment outcomes and induction mortality according to backbone regimen intensity. Methods: The data of 132 patients diagnosed with Ph-positive ALL were retrospectively collected from five centers. Patients received imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy (modified VPD, KALLA1407, or hyper-CVAD) or reduced-intensity chemotherapy (EWALL) for curative purposes. This study analyzed 117 patients, of which 35,22,46, and 14 received modified VPD, KALLA1407, hyper-CVAD, and EWALL, respectively. All patients used imatinib as a TKI. Results: The median age of the patients who received reduced-intensity chemotherapy was 64.4 years, while that of the patients with intensive regimens was 47.5 years. There was no induction death in the reduced-intensity group, while nine patients died in the intensive therapy group. Major molecular response achievement tended to be higher in the intensive chemotherapy group than in the reduced-intensity group. More patients in the intensive chemotherapy group received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups in terms of relapse-free survival and overall survival rates. Conclusions When imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy was used as a frontline treatment, there was no inferiority in obtaining complete remission compared to imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy or significant difference in long-term survival. Since imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy has limitations in obtaining a deep molecular response, proceeding to allo-SCT should be considered.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: The immunological response and adverse effects of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) in patients receiving coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of these vaccines on AAV disease activity. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 52 patients with AAV who had received at least second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and evaluated their immunogenicity by measuring the anti-spike (S) antibody (Ab) titer levels using the Roche Elecsys® immunoassay. Responses to the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) tool and 36-Item Short Form Survey before and after vaccination were obtained to assess AAV disease activity. Vaccine reactivity was measured using a standardized questionnaire. Results: We enrolled 52 patients with AAV. No differences were found between those who received second and third doses of vaccination in terms of AAV type, disease activity, vaccine type, or the use of immunosuppressive agents, including steroids. The median anti-S Ab titer was 3967.0 after third doses compared to 419.0 after second doses (p=0.001). Except for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), when immunosuppressants were administered in conjunction with steroids, the Ab titer was higher after the third vaccination than that after the second dose. The BVAS remained unchanged before and after second and third doses. No life-threatening adverse events were reported. Conclusion Although COVID-19 vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies in patients taking MMF, the vaccine did not exacerbate disease activity or cause severe side effects. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines should be considered in patients with AAV.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Objective: In this study, changes in treatment methods and patient prognosis were analyzed using a Korean nationwide medical insurance information database. Methods: Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage who received surgical treatment for cerebral aneurysm from 2005 to 2020 were included. The specific surgery type was classified using the surgical code and according to whether stents were used. Yearly trends in mortality rates and poor prognosis, using tracheostomy as proxy, were analyzed by a simple regression analysis. A multistep logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk factors of mortality and poor prognosis. Results: Overall, 83,587 patients were included. Females were predominant (64.5%). Microsurgical clip usage rate decreased by approximately two-thirds from 78.8% in 2005 to 24.4% in 2020. Contrarily, endovascular treatment proportion gradually increased, and stent-assisted coil embolization rate surpassed microsurgical clip usage rate in 2020 (24.6% vs. 24.4%). In the multivariate analysis, endovascular treatment correlated positively with 3-month mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.19, P<0.0001), although correlated negatively with poor prognosis (tracheostomy) (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.98, P=0.0050). Conclusions According to the treatment trend analysis, during the 16 years studied, for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage due to ruptured cerebral aneurysm, the endovascular treatment rate increased rapidly and stent-assisted coil embolization rate surpassed that of microsurgical clip ligation. Diversification of treatment methods has led to a decrease in mortality and improved prognosis.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.