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.

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: 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: 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.

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: 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: The cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4) is involved in the progression of various cancers, but its biological roles in breast cancer (BRCA) remain unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic multiomic analysis to expound on the prognostic value and underlying mechanism of CTLA4 in BRCA. Methods: We assessed the effect of CTLA4 expression on BRCA using a variety of bioinformatics platforms, including Oncomine, GEPIA, UALCAN, PrognoScan database, Kaplan-Meier plotter, and R2: Kaplan-Meier scanner. Results: CTLA4 was highly expressed in BRCA tumor tissue compared to normal tissue (P < 0.01). The CTLA4 messenger RNA levels in BRCA based on BRCA subtypes of Luminal, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and triple-negative BRCA were considerably higher than in normal tissues (P < 0.001). However, the overexpression of CTLA4 was associated with a better prognosis in BRCA (P < 0.001) and was correlated with clinicopathological characteristics including age, T stage, estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and prediction analysis of microarray 50 (P < 0.01). The infiltration of multiple immune cells was associated with increased CTLA4 expression in BRCA (P < 0.001). CTLA4 was highly enriched in antigen binding, immunoglobulin complexes, lymphocyte-mediated immunity, and cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction. Conclusion This study provides suggestive evidence of the prognostic role of CTLA4 in BRCA, which may be a therapeutic target for BRCA. Furthermore, CTLA4 may influence BRCA prognosis through antigen binding, immunoglobulin complexes, lymphocyte-mediated immunity, and cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction. These findings help us understand how CTLA4 plays a role in BRCA and set the stage for more research.

Objective: Agriculture is a hazardous industry. However, previous studies have focused on injuries to agricultural workers without comparison with injuries to nonagricultural workers. Therefore, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries reported at an emergency department (ED) between agricultural workers and nonagricultural workers. Methods: We established a prospective ED-based agricultural injury surveillance system at a tertiary university hospital. Adult patients visiting the ED for an injury were divided into farmer and non-farmer groups depending on their engagement with agriculture. Using an adjusted multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (age, sex, inhabitant, and insurance type), we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries between the farmer and non-farmer groups. Results: In total, 38,556 injured adult patients (37,746 in the non-farmer group and 810 in the farmer group) were available for the unmatched sample analysis. The 1,620 matched subjects were equally classified after one-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of the unmatched sample revealed higher adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for intensive care unit admission (adjusted OR, 1.752; P=0.003) and overall surgery (adjusted OR, 1.870; P<0.001) in the farmer group. In contrast, univariate logistic regression analyses of the propensity score–matched sample found a higher OR in the farmer group only for overall surgery (OR, 1.786; P<0.001). Conclusion Injuries of agricultural workers had higher odds only of requiring surgery; differences in injury-related mortality between groups were not statistically significant in either the matched or unmatched sample analyses.