Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed. Objective: This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based recommendations. Methods: The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved. Results: This guideline provides treatment guidance on advanced systemic treatment modalities for AD. In particular, the guideline offers up-to-date treatment recommendations for biologics and Janus-kinase inhibitors used in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD.It also provides guidance on other therapies for AD, along with tailored recommendations for children, adolescents, the elderly, and pregnant or breastfeeding women. Conclusion KADA’s updated AD treatment guidelines incorporate the latest evidence and expert opinion to provide a comprehensive approach to AD treatment. The guidelines will help clinicians optimize patient-specific therapies.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed. Objective: This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based practices. Methods: The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved. Results: The guidelines provide detailed recommendations on foundational therapies, including the use of moisturizers, cleansing and bathing practices, allergen avoidance, and patient education. Guidance on topical therapies, such as topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, is also provided to help manage inflammation and maintain skin barrier function in patients with AD. Additionally, recommendations on conventional systemic therapies, including corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate, are provided for managing moderate to severe AD. Conclusion KADA’s updated AD guidelines offer clinicians evidence-based strategies focused on basic therapies, topical therapies, and conventional systemic therapies, equipping them to enhance quality of care and improve patient outcomes in AD management.

Background: In 2006, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group released the diagnostic criteria for Korean atopic dermatitis (AD). Recently, more simplified, and practical AD diagnostic criteria have been proposed. Objective: Based on updated criteria and experience, we studied to develop and share a consensus on diagnostic criteria for AD in Koreans. Materials and Methods: For the diagnostic criteria, a questionnaire was constructed by searching the English-language literature in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A modified Delphi method composed of 3 rounds of email questionnaires was adopted for the consensus process. Fifty-four KADA council members participated in the 3 rounds of votes and expert consensus recommendations were established. Results: Diagnostic criteria for AD include pruritus, eczema with age-specific pattern, and chronic or relapsing history. Diagnostic aids for AD encompass xerosis, immunoglobulin E reactivity, hand–foot eczema, periorbital changes, periauricular changes, perioral changes, nipple eczema, perifollicular accentuation, and personal or family history of atopy. Conclusion This study streamlined and updated the diagnostic criteria for AD in Korea, making them more practicable for use in real-world clinical field.

Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a potential biomarker in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, studies on residual ctDNA in patients post-chemotherapy are limited. We assessed the prognostic value of residual ctDNA in metastatic PDAC relative to that of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9). Methods: ctDNA analysis using a targeted next-generation sequencing panel was performed at baseline and during chemotherapy response evaluation in 53 patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were first evaluated based on ctDNA positivity at baseline. For further comparison, patients testing ctDNA-positive at baseline were subdivided based on residual ctDNA into ctDNA responders (no residual ctDNA post-chemotherapy) and ctDNA non-responders (residual ctDNA post-chemotherapy). Additional survival analysis was performed based on CA19-9 levels. Results: The baseline ctDNA detection rate was 56.6%. Although clinical outcomes tended to be poorer in patients with baseline ctDNA positivity than in those without, the differences were not significant. Residual ctDNA post-chemotherapy was associated with reduced PFS and OS. The prognosis of ctDNA responders was better than that of non-responders but did not significantly differ from that of ctDNA-negative individuals (no ctDNA both at baseline and during post-chemotherapy). Compared with ctDNA responses to che-motherapy, a ≥ 50% decrease in the CA19-9 level had less effect on both PFS and OSbased on hazard ratios and significance levels. ctDNA could be monitored in half of the patients whose baseline CA19-9 levels were within the reference range. Conclusions Residual ctDNA analysis post-chemotherapy is a promising approach for predicting the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic PDAC.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the Cancer Public Library Database (CPLD), established under the Korean Clinical Data Utilization for Research Excellence project (K-CURE). The CPLD links data from four major population-based public sources: the Korea National Cancer Incidence Database in the Korea Central Cancer Registry, cause-of-death data in Statistics Korea, the National Health Information Database in the National Health Insurance Service, and the National Health Insurance Research Database in the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. These databases are linked using an encrypted resident registration number. The CPLD, established in 2022 and updated annually, comprises 1,983,499 men and women newly diagnosed with cancer between 2012 and 2019. It contains data on cancer registration and death, demographics, medical claims, general health checkups, and national cancer screening. The most common cancers among men in the CPLD were stomach (16.1%), lung (14.0%), colorectal (13.3%), prostate (9.6%), and liver (9.3%) cancers. The most common cancers among women were thyroid (20.4%), breast (16.6%), colorectal (9.0%), stomach (7.8%), and lung (6.2%) cancers. Among them, 571,285 died between 2012 and 2020 owing to cancer (89.2%) or other causes (10.8%). Upon approval, the CPLD is accessible to researchers through the K-CURE portal. The CPLD is a unique resource for diverse cancer research to investigate medical use before a cancer diagnosis, during initial diagnosis and treatment, and long-term follow-up. This offers expanded insight into healthcare delivery across the cancer continuum, from screening to end-of-life care.