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.

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.

Background: and Purpose The influence of imaging features of brain frailty on outcomes were investigated in acute ischemic stroke patients with minor symptoms and large-vessel occlusion (LVO). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicenter, nationwide registry of consecutive patients with acute (within 24 h) minor (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score=0–5) ischemic stroke with anterior circulation LVO (acute minor LVO). Brain frailty was stratified according to the presence of an advanced white-matter hyperintensity (WMH) (Fazekas grade 2 or 3), silent/old brain infarct, or cerebral microbleeds. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality within 1 year. Results: In total, 1,067 patients (age=67.2±13.1 years [mean±SD], 61.3% males) were analyzed. The proportions of patients according to the numbers of brain frailty burdens were as follows: no burden in 49.2%, one burden in 30.0%, two burdens in 17.3%, and three burdens in 3.5%. In the Cox proportional-hazards analysis, the presence of more brain frailty burdens was associated with a higher risk of 1-year primary outcomes, but after adjusting for clinically relevant variables there were no significant associations between burdens of brain frailty and 1-year vascular outcomes. For individual components of brain frailty, an advanced WMH was independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year primary outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03–1.71) and stroke (aHR=1.32, 95% CI=1.00–1.75). Conclusions The baseline imaging markers of brain frailty were common in acute minor ischemic stroke patients with LVO. An advanced WMH was the only frailty marker associated with an increased risk of vascular events. Further research is needed into the association between brain frailty and prognosis in patients with acute minor LVO.