Purpose: Patient-derived cells (PDCs) and patient-derived organoids (PDOs) are complementary preclinical models widely used in translational cancer research. However, their molecular and functional differences have not been systematically characterized. This study established and analyzed paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same gastric cancer ascites to delineate platform-dependent molecular and functional profiles. Materials and Methods: Malignant ascites or pleural fluid obtained from 6 patients with advanced gastric cancer were used to establish paired PDC and PDO models. All pairs underwent comprehensive multi-omics profiling, integrating genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data. Phenotypic characterization included morphological, histological, proliferative, and cell cycle analyses. Drug sensitivity assays were performed using 4 chemotherapeutic agents commonly used to treat gastric cancer. Results: The 6 paired PDC and PDO models exhibited distinct morphological characteristics.Whole-genome analyses demonstrated high concordance among primary tumors, PDCs, and PDOs, confirming tumor representation across platforms. Multi-omics profiling identified platform-dependent molecular signatures; PDOs were enriched for extracellular matrix remodeling and stemness, whereas PDCs displayed proliferation- and immune-related signatures. Clinically relevant biomarkers, including HER2 and MET alterations, were concordant with primary tumors. Notably, drug responses differed between platforms and patients, indicating platform-dependent and patient-specific chemosensitivity. Conclusions Paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same patients preserved core patient-specific tumor characteristics while exhibiting distinct molecular and functional profiles. These findings underscore the culture platform as a critical determinant of experimental outcomes and therapeutic responses. Therefore, careful selection of an appropriate preclinical model is essential to accurately address biological questions and optimize precision oncology strategies.

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.

Purpose: Varlitinib is a pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) inhibitor targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and HER4. We present a phase Ib/II study of a combination of varlitinib and weekly paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Materials and Methods: Patients whose tumors with EGFR and HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry (≥ 1+) were enrolled. Varlitinib and paclitaxel were investigated every 4 weeks. After determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in phase Ib, a phase II study was conducted to evaluate the antitumor activity. Results: RP2D was treated with a combination of varlitinib (300 mg twice daily) and paclitaxel. Among 27 patients treated with RP2D, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 3.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 4.9) and 7.9 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 10.8), respectively, with a median follow-up of 15.7 months. Among 16 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were 31% and 88%, respectively. Patients with strong HER2 expression (n=8) had a higher ORR and longer OS, whereas those with strong EGFR expression (n=3) had poorer outcomes. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade were neutropenia (52%), diarrhea (27%), aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transaminase elevation (22%), and nausea (19%). No treatment-related deaths or unexpected AEs resulting from treatment cessation were observed in patients with RP2D. Conclusion A combination of varlitinib and paclitaxel displayed manageable toxicity and modest antitumor activity in patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing AGC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Purpose: Tumors of the foot and ankle account for approximately 3%~5% of all musculoskeletal tumors, and accurate diagnosis is often delayed due to their rare prevalence. Therefore, the authors aimed to analyze the incidence, treatment methods, and prognostic factors of foot and ankle tumors treated at the authors’ hospital. Materials and Methods: A retrospective single-center study examined 342 patients treated for foot and ankle tumors at the authors’ hospital from January 2011 to February 2022. Data were collected from the electronic medical records (EMR) and picture archiving and communication systems (PACS). The information analyzed included gender, age, follow-up period, diagnosis, tumor occurrence and recurrence, treatment, and clinical outcomes. Results: Most cases (93.3%) were benign, but 6.7% were malignant. The main treatment for malignant tumors was surgical resection (91.3%). Approximately 53.1% of benign tumors and 91.3% of malignant tumors were treated with surgery, and two of the malignant tumors that did not undergo surgery had metastatic cancer. After surgery, 8.2% of benign lesions and 19.0% of malignant lesions recurred, and 9.5% of the patients with malignant tumors died after surgery. Conclusion Most foot and ankle tumors are benign tumors, and the prognosis is not poor if treated properly, but most malignant tumors often require amputation. In some cases, however, amputation can be avoided with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy.