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: 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.

Background: and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Objective: We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. Methods: We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). Results: MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. Conclusions Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD.

Background: and Purpose: Brain atrophy, characterized by sulcal widening and ventricular enlargement, is a hallmark of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. Visual assessments are subjective and variable, while automated methods struggle with subtle intensity differences and standardization, highlighting limitations in both approaches. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a novel method focusing on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) regions by assessing segmentation accuracy, detecting stage-specific atrophy patterns, and testing generalizability to unstandardized datasets. Methods: We utilized T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging data from 3,315 participants from Samsung Medical Center and 1,439 participants from other hospitals. Segmentation accuracy was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and W-scores were calculated for each region of interest (ROI) to assess stage-specific atrophy patterns. Results: The segmentation demonstrated high accuracy, with average DSC values exceeding 0.9 for ventricular and hippocampal regions and above 0.8 for cortical regions. Significant differences in W-scores were observed across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired, mild cognitive impairment, dementia of Alzheimer’s type) for all ROIs (all, p<0.05). Similar trends were observed in the images from other hospitals, confirming the algorithm’s generalizability to datasets without prior standardization. Conclusions This study demonstrates the robustness and clinical applicability of a novel CSF-focused segmentation method for assessing brain atrophy. The method provides a scalable and objective framework for evaluating structural changes across cognitive stages and holds potential for broader application in neurodegenerative disease research and clinical practice.

Background: Sarcopenia, a multifactorial disorder involving metabolic disturbance, suggests potential for metabolite biomarkers. Carnitine (CN), essential for skeletal muscle energy metabolism, may be a candidate biomarker. We investigated whether CN metabolites are biomarkers for sarcopenia. Methods: Associations between the CN metabolites identified from an animal model of sarcopenia and muscle cells and sarcopenia status were evaluated in men from an age-matched discovery (72 cases, 72 controls) and a validation (21 cases, 47 controls) cohort. Results: An association between CN metabolites and sarcopenia showed in mouse and cell studies. In the discovery cohort, plasma C5-CN levels were lower in sarcopenic men (P=0.005). C5-CN levels in men tended to be associated with handgrip strength (HGS) (P=0.098) and were significantly associated with skeletal muscle mass (P=0.003). Each standard deviation increase in C5-CN levels reduced the odds of low muscle mass (odd ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.89). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of CN score using a regression equation of C5-CN levels, for sarcopenia was 0.635 (95% CI, 0.544 to 0.726). In the discovery cohort, addition of CN score to HGS significantly improved AUROC from 0.646 (95% CI, 0.575 to 0.717; HGS only) to 0.727 (95% CI, 0.643 to 0.810; P=0.006; HGS+CN score). The improvement was confirmed in the validation cohort (AUROC=0.563; 95% CI, 0.470 to 0.656 for HGS; and AUROC=0.712; 95% CI, 0.569 to 0.855 for HGS+CN score; P=0.027). Conclusion C5-CN, indicative of low muscle mass, is a potential circulating biomarker for sarcopenia in men. Further studies are required to confirm these results and explore sarcopenia-related metabolomic changes.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a comprehensive practical guide for enteral nutrition (EN) designed to enhance patient safety and reduce complications in Korea. Under the leadership of the Korean Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (KSPEN), the initiative sought to standardize EN procedures, improve decision-making, and promote effective multidisciplinary communication. Methods: The KSPEN EN committee identified key questions related to EN practices and organized them into seven sections such as prescribing, delivery route selection, formula preparation, administration, and quality management. Twenty-one experts, selected based on their expertise, conducted a thorough literature review to formulate evidence-based recommendations. Drafts underwent peer review both within and across disciplines, with final revisions completed by the KSPEN Guideline Committee. The guide, which will be published in three installments, addresses critical elements of EN therapy and safety protocols. Results: The practical guide recommends that EN orders include detailed elements and advocates the use of electronic medical records for communication. Standardized prescription forms and supplementary safety measures are outlined. Review frequency is adjusted according to patient condition—daily for critically ill or unstable patients and as dictated by institutional protocols for stable patients. Evidence indicates that adherence to these protocols reduces mortality, complications, and prescription errors. Conclusion The KSPEN practical guide offers a robust framework for the safe delivery of EN tailored to Korea’s healthcare context. It emphasizes standardized protocols and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve nutritional outcomes, patient safety, and operational efficiency. Rigorous implementation and monitoring of adherence are critical for its success.

Purpose: Considering the high disease burden and unique features of Asian patients with breast cancer (BC), it is essential to have a comprehensive view of genetic characteristics in this population. An institutional targeted sequencing platform was developed through the Korea Research-Driven Hospitals project and was incorporated into clinical practice. This study explores the use of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and its outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic BC in the real world. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the results of NGS tests administered to BC patients using a customized sequencing platform—FiRST Cancer Panel (FCP)—over 7 years. We systematically described clinical translation of FCP for precise diagnostics, personalized therapeutic strategies, and unraveling disease pathogenesis. Results: NGS tests were conducted on 548 samples from 522 patients with BC. Ninety-seven point six percentage of tested samples harbored at least one pathogenic alteration. The common alterations included mutations in TP53 (56.2%), PIK3CA (31.2%), GATA3 (13.8%), BRCA2 (10.2%), and amplifications of CCND1 (10.8%), FGF19 (10.0%), and ERBB2 (9.5%). NGS analysis of ERBB2 amplification correlated well with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. RNA panel analyses found potentially actionable and prognostic fusion genes. FCP effectively screened for potentially germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutation. Ten point three percent of BC patients received matched therapy guided by NGS, resulting in a significant overall survival advantage (p=0.022), especially for metastatic BCs. Conclusion Clinical NGS provided multifaceted benefits, deepening our understanding of the disease, improving diagnostic precision, and paving the way for targeted therapies. The concrete advantages of FCP highlight the importance of multi-gene testing for BC, especially for metastatic conditions.

Purpose: In Korea, the Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) was implemented on February 4, 2018. We aimed to investigate relevant factors and clinical changes associated with LST decisions after law enforcement. Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who completed LST documents using legal forms at Asan Medical Center from February 5, 2018, to June 30, 2020. Results: 5,896 patients completed LST documents, of which 2,704 (45.8%) signed the documents in person, while family members of 3,192 (54%) wrote the documents on behalf of the patients. Comparing first year and following year of implementation of the act, the self-documentation rate increased (43.9% to 47.2%, p=0.014). Moreover, the number of LST decisions made during or after intensive care unit admission decreased (37.8% vs. 35.2%, p=0.045), and the completion rate of LST documents during chemotherapy increased (6.6% vs. 8.9%, p=0.001). In multivariate analysis, age < 65 (odds ratio [OR], 1.724; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.538 to 1.933; p < 0.001), unmarried status (OR, 1.309; 95% CI, 1.097 to 1.561; p=0.003), palliative care consultation (OR, 1.538; 95% CI, 1.340 to 1.765; p < 0.001), malignancy (OR, 1.864; 95% CI, 1.628 to 2.133; p < 0.001), and changes in timing on the first year versus following year (OR, 1.124; 95% CI, 1.003 to 1.260; p=0.045) were related to a higher self-documentation rate. Conclusion Age < 65 years, unmarried status, malignancy, and referral to a palliative care team were associated with patients making LST decisions themselves. Furthermore, the subject and timing of LST decisions have changed with the LST act.

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: 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.