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: 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: We aimed to identify the expectations and preferences for medication and medical decision-making in patients with major psychiatric disorders. Methods: A survey was conducted among patients with major psychiatric disorders who visited psychiatric outpatient clinics at 15 hospitals between 2016 and 2018 in Korea. The survey consisted of 12 questions about demographic variables and opinions on their expectations for medication, important medical decision-makers, and preferred drug type. The most preferred value in each category in the total population was identified, and differences in the preference ratio of each item among the disease groups were compared. Results: A total of 707 participants were surveyed. In the total population, patients reported high efficacy (44.01%±21.44%) as the main wish for medication, themselves (37.39%±22.57%) and a doctor (35.27%±22.88%) as the main decision makers, and tablet/capsule (36.16%±30.69%) as the preferred type of drug. In the depressive disorders group, the preference ratio of high efficacy was significantly lower, and the preference ratio of a small amount was significantly higher than that of the psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder groups. The preference ratio of a doctor as an important decision maker in the bipolar disorder group was higher compared to the other groups. Conclusion This study revealed the preference for medications and showed differences among patients with psychiatric disorders. Providing personalized medicine that considers a patient’s preference for the drug may contribute to the improvement of drug compliance and outcomes.

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.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage is a rare complication that can occur due to dural defects during spinal surgery, hindering the improvement of the surgical site and increasing the possibility of infection. DuraSeal® is a dural sealing adhesive that prevents CSF leakage and is used as an adjunct to enable the watertight repair of dural defects when the dura is damaged during spinal surgery. In the present case, DuraSeal® was applied to repair a dural defect in the surgical area after thoracic spine surgery, and no neurological problems occurred immediately after surgery. However, a day later, the patient’s paraparesis worsened; therefore, reoperation was performed and the symptoms improved.

Objective: The objective of this nationwide, long-term follow-up study was to explore the connection between congestive heart failure (CHF) and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) in Korea. Methods: Patient information was collected from the Health Screening cohort of the National Health Insurance Service. Individuals diagnosed with OPLL were identified using specific International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes (M48.8, M48.81, M48.82, and M48.83). A total of 1,289 OPLL patients and 6,445 controls were included in the study, selected through 1:5 age and sex matching. The data spanned from January 1, 2004 to July 31, 2015. To compute the incidence rate of CHF in each group, the Kaplan-Meier method was employed. Additionally, Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was utilized to estimate the hazard ratio of CHF. Results: CHF was present in 19 patients (1.47%) in the OPLL group and 71 patients (1.10%) in the control group. After accounting for age and sex, the hazard ratio for CHF in the OPLL group was 3.164 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.867-5.360). When additionally considering income and underlying diseases, the hazard ratio for CHF within the OPLL group was 3.355 (95% CI, 1.977-5.694). All subgroups of OPLL patients exhibited an increased risk ratio for CHF across parameters such as sex, age, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Conclusion According to this nationwide longitudinal study, an elevated incidence rate of CHF was associated with OPLL.