Objectives: . A substantial proportion of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) require emergency room (ER) visits or unplanned hospitalizations during or after treatment with various modalities. We investigated HNC cases that necessitated ER visitation after cancer treatment, aiming to identify potential risk factors in the context of the Korean healthcare system. Methods: . This single-center cohort study examined patients with HNC who received cancer treatments at Samsung Medical Center in 2019 (n=566). Treatment modalities included surgery alone (n=184), surgery and adjuvant therapy (n=138), curative non-surgical treatment such as radiation or chemoradiation (n=209), and palliative treatments (n=35). We followed these cases for up to 3 years, focusing on those who visited the ER during or after cancer treatment, and analyzed the primary reasons and risk factors associated with these visits. Results: . The ER visitation rate was 8.0% (n=45) among patients with HNC, with a total of 70 ER visits (12.4%; mean, 1.56; range, 1–4). The rate of treatment-related ER visitation was 4.6%. Common reasons for ER visits included surgical site or wound complications (31.1% of patients visiting the ER, 22.9% of ER visits) and issues with oral intake or feeding (22.2% of patients, 31.4% of visits). Significant risk factors for ER visits included tumor subsite (with hypopharyngeal cancer associated with a 17.9% rate of treatment-related ER visits), tumor stage (T2–4, 8.6%–12.2%; N+ status, 6.7%), and treatment modality (surgery with adjuvant chemoradiation, 19.4%). Patient age and comorbidities did not represent significant factors. Conclusion . The most frequent reasons for ER visits among patients with HNC included complications with wounds and feeding. Additionally, tumor characteristics and treatment modality were independent risk factors for ER visits. Adequate planning and management to address these issues could potentially decrease the number of ER visits, lower costs, and improve patient care.

Objectives: . A substantial proportion of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) require emergency room (ER) visits or unplanned hospitalizations during or after treatment with various modalities. We investigated HNC cases that necessitated ER visitation after cancer treatment, aiming to identify potential risk factors in the context of the Korean healthcare system. Methods: . This single-center cohort study examined patients with HNC who received cancer treatments at Samsung Medical Center in 2019 (n=566). Treatment modalities included surgery alone (n=184), surgery and adjuvant therapy (n=138), curative non-surgical treatment such as radiation or chemoradiation (n=209), and palliative treatments (n=35). We followed these cases for up to 3 years, focusing on those who visited the ER during or after cancer treatment, and analyzed the primary reasons and risk factors associated with these visits. Results: . The ER visitation rate was 8.0% (n=45) among patients with HNC, with a total of 70 ER visits (12.4%; mean, 1.56; range, 1–4). The rate of treatment-related ER visitation was 4.6%. Common reasons for ER visits included surgical site or wound complications (31.1% of patients visiting the ER, 22.9% of ER visits) and issues with oral intake or feeding (22.2% of patients, 31.4% of visits). Significant risk factors for ER visits included tumor subsite (with hypopharyngeal cancer associated with a 17.9% rate of treatment-related ER visits), tumor stage (T2–4, 8.6%–12.2%; N+ status, 6.7%), and treatment modality (surgery with adjuvant chemoradiation, 19.4%). Patient age and comorbidities did not represent significant factors. Conclusion . The most frequent reasons for ER visits among patients with HNC included complications with wounds and feeding. Additionally, tumor characteristics and treatment modality were independent risk factors for ER visits. Adequate planning and management to address these issues could potentially decrease the number of ER visits, lower costs, and improve patient care.

Objectives: . A substantial proportion of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) require emergency room (ER) visits or unplanned hospitalizations during or after treatment with various modalities. We investigated HNC cases that necessitated ER visitation after cancer treatment, aiming to identify potential risk factors in the context of the Korean healthcare system. Methods: . This single-center cohort study examined patients with HNC who received cancer treatments at Samsung Medical Center in 2019 (n=566). Treatment modalities included surgery alone (n=184), surgery and adjuvant therapy (n=138), curative non-surgical treatment such as radiation or chemoradiation (n=209), and palliative treatments (n=35). We followed these cases for up to 3 years, focusing on those who visited the ER during or after cancer treatment, and analyzed the primary reasons and risk factors associated with these visits. Results: . The ER visitation rate was 8.0% (n=45) among patients with HNC, with a total of 70 ER visits (12.4%; mean, 1.56; range, 1–4). The rate of treatment-related ER visitation was 4.6%. Common reasons for ER visits included surgical site or wound complications (31.1% of patients visiting the ER, 22.9% of ER visits) and issues with oral intake or feeding (22.2% of patients, 31.4% of visits). Significant risk factors for ER visits included tumor subsite (with hypopharyngeal cancer associated with a 17.9% rate of treatment-related ER visits), tumor stage (T2–4, 8.6%–12.2%; N+ status, 6.7%), and treatment modality (surgery with adjuvant chemoradiation, 19.4%). Patient age and comorbidities did not represent significant factors. Conclusion . The most frequent reasons for ER visits among patients with HNC included complications with wounds and feeding. Additionally, tumor characteristics and treatment modality were independent risk factors for ER visits. Adequate planning and management to address these issues could potentially decrease the number of ER visits, lower costs, and improve patient care.

The study was conducted to examine the prevalence and degree of peri-implantitis in implant-supported bridges compared to splinted crowns in 3-unit and 4-unit posterior edentulous areas. A total of 229 implant sites from 79 patients who had received implants at the Kyungpook National University Dental Hospital were evaluated. The observation period ranged from 2 to 12 years. Patient characteristics and implant-related factors were investigated. After surgery and prosthetic treatment, radiographic evaluations were performed. Also, to identify factors that could affect the prognosis of the implants, Fisher’s exact tests and chi-square were used. In addition, the mean distance between crestal bone levels and implant platform was compared between implant-supported bridges and splinted crowns using the Mann-Whitney U test. No statistically significant differences were found in the mean distances between implant platforms and bone levels in either restoration type. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 15% in splinted crowns and 13% in bridges, with restoration type showing no significant association. However, middle implant showed the highest rate of peri-implantitis compared to other positions. Furthermore, bone augmentation and implant sites (maxilla or mandible) showed significant association with peri-implantitis. In conclusion, restoration type does not influence the prevalence or severity of peri-implantitis, but implant position affect the rate of peri-implantitis. Clinicians should consider bone quality when choosing between implant-supported bridges and splinted crowns.

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the treatment outcomes and adverse effects of moderately hypofractionated partial breast irradiation (PBI) in patients with early breast cancer. Methods: In total, 473 patients with early breast cancer or carcinoma in situ were diagnosed with Tis or T1N0 disease and underwent PBI following breast-conserving surgery. All histologic tumor types, close surgical margins within 1 mm of the tumor, and multifocal tumors were included in this study. A radiation dose of 50 Gy in 20 fractions was delivered over 4 weeks using intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique. Dosimetric data, recurrence patterns, survival outcomes, and adverse events were retrospectively analyzed. Results: During a median follow-up of 28.9 months, seven patients (1.5%) experienced ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Two patients had regional recurrence, four patients developed contralateral breast cancer, and no distant metastases were observed. The locoregional recurrence rate in the ipsilateral breast was 1.8%. Two deaths occurred during the follow-up period, but were not attributed to breast cancer. The 2-year disease-free survival and 2-year overall survival rates were was 94.0% and 99.8%, respectively. Acute adverse events occurred in 131 patients (27.1%), and were distributed among all grades, with only two patients (0.4%) experiencing grade 3 events. Late adverse events were noted in 16 patients (3.4%), and were distributed among all grades, including grade 3 events in four patients (0.8%). No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. Conclusion Hypofractionated PBI demonstrated favorable IBTR rates in patients with early breast cancer, with low incidence of acute and late toxicities in the short-term analysis.

Purpose: Treatment with 4 cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) in the adjuvant setting is associated with better outcomes than treatment with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC). However, Western guidelines have indicated that TC confers a high risk (>20%) of febrile neutropenia (FN), while AC confers an intermediate risk (10%–20%) of FN. Threrefore, we evaluated the incidence of FN and the clinical utilization of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis after adjuvant TC chemotherapy. Methods: We categorized 201 patients who received adjuvant TC chemotherapy into 3 groups according to the method of prophylaxis and compared neutropenic events, other adverse events, and hospital care costs in the 3 groups. Results: The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia decreased from 93.0% in patients without prophylaxis to 82.4% in those who received secondary prophylaxis and 16.7% in those who received primary prophylaxis. Although the incidence of FN was not different between patients without prophylaxis and patients who received secondary prophylaxis (15.7% and 14.9%), none of the patients who received primary prophylaxis developed FN. Moreover, a decrease in neutropenic events resulted in a significant decrease in the mean duration of neutropenia (2.50 days to 0.08 days, P < 0.001), the risk of hospitalization (29.8% to 2.2%, P < 0.001), and the mean total hospital care cost for all chemotherapy cycles (790.80 to 486.00 US dollars, P < 0.001). Conclusion The use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during adjuvant TC chemotherapy is associated with significant decreases in the incidence of neutropenic events, hospitalization, and hospital care cost compared to those seen in patients without prophylaxis.