Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.

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: 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.

Background: Although the presence of both obesity and reduced muscle mass presents a dual metabolic burden and additively has a negative effect on a variety of cardiometabolic parameters, data regarding the associations between their combined effects and left ventricular diastolic function are limited. This study investigated the association between the ratio of skeletal muscle mass to visceral fat area (SVR) and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in patients with preserved ejection fraction using random forest machine learning. Methods: In total, 1,070 participants with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent comprehensive health examinations, including transthoracic echocardiography and bioimpedance body composition analysis, were enrolled. SVR was calculated as an index of sarcopenic obesity by dividing the appendicular skeletal muscle mass by the visceral fat area. Results: In the random forest model, age and SVR were the most powerful predictors of LVDD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that older age (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 1.15) and lower SVR (adjusted OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.57) were independent risk factors for LVDD.SVR showed a significant improvement in predictive performance and fair predictability for LVDD, with the highest area under the curve noted in both men and women, with statistical significance. In non-obese and metabolically healthy individuals, the lowest SVR tertile was associated with a greater risk of LVDD compared to the highest SVR tertile. Conclusion Decreased muscle mass and increased visceral fat were significantly associated with LVDD compared to obesity, body fat composition, and body muscle composition indices.

Background: Although the presence of both obesity and reduced muscle mass presents a dual metabolic burden and additively has a negative effect on a variety of cardiometabolic parameters, data regarding the associations between their combined effects and left ventricular diastolic function are limited. This study investigated the association between the ratio of skeletal muscle mass to visceral fat area (SVR) and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in patients with preserved ejection fraction using random forest machine learning. Methods: In total, 1,070 participants with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent comprehensive health examinations, including transthoracic echocardiography and bioimpedance body composition analysis, were enrolled. SVR was calculated as an index of sarcopenic obesity by dividing the appendicular skeletal muscle mass by the visceral fat area. Results: In the random forest model, age and SVR were the most powerful predictors of LVDD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that older age (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 1.15) and lower SVR (adjusted OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.57) were independent risk factors for LVDD.SVR showed a significant improvement in predictive performance and fair predictability for LVDD, with the highest area under the curve noted in both men and women, with statistical significance. In non-obese and metabolically healthy individuals, the lowest SVR tertile was associated with a greater risk of LVDD compared to the highest SVR tertile. Conclusion Decreased muscle mass and increased visceral fat were significantly associated with LVDD compared to obesity, body fat composition, and body muscle composition indices.

Background: Although the presence of both obesity and reduced muscle mass presents a dual metabolic burden and additively has a negative effect on a variety of cardiometabolic parameters, data regarding the associations between their combined effects and left ventricular diastolic function are limited. This study investigated the association between the ratio of skeletal muscle mass to visceral fat area (SVR) and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in patients with preserved ejection fraction using random forest machine learning. Methods: In total, 1,070 participants with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent comprehensive health examinations, including transthoracic echocardiography and bioimpedance body composition analysis, were enrolled. SVR was calculated as an index of sarcopenic obesity by dividing the appendicular skeletal muscle mass by the visceral fat area. Results: In the random forest model, age and SVR were the most powerful predictors of LVDD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that older age (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 1.15) and lower SVR (adjusted OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.57) were independent risk factors for LVDD.SVR showed a significant improvement in predictive performance and fair predictability for LVDD, with the highest area under the curve noted in both men and women, with statistical significance. In non-obese and metabolically healthy individuals, the lowest SVR tertile was associated with a greater risk of LVDD compared to the highest SVR tertile. Conclusion Decreased muscle mass and increased visceral fat were significantly associated with LVDD compared to obesity, body fat composition, and body muscle composition indices.

Purpose: This report offers a detailed examination of the inception and current state of the Heavy-ion Therapy Center (HITC) at the Yonsei Cancer Center (YCC), setting it apart as the world’s first center equipped with a fixed beam and two superconducting gantries for carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT). Materials and Methods: Preparations for CIRT at YCC began in 2013; accordingly, this center has completed a decade of meticulous planning and culminating since the operational commencement of the HITC in April 2023. Results: This report elaborates on the clinical preparation for adopting CIRT in Korea. It includes an extensive description of HITC’s facility layout at YCC, which comprises the accelerator and treatment rooms. Furthermore, this report delineates the clinical workflow, criteria for CIRT application, and the rigorous quality assurance processes implemented at YCC. It highlights YCC’s sophisticated radiation therapy infrastructure, collaborative initiatives, and the efficacious treatment of >200 prostate cancer cases utilizing CIRT. Conclusion This manuscript concludes by discussing the prospective influence of CIRT on the medical domain within Korea, spotlighting YCC’s pioneering contribution and forecasting the widespread integration of this groundbreaking technology.