Purpose: Non-operative management (NOM) has emerged as a promising organ-preserving strategy for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). However, no standardized treatment protocol has been established for watch-and-wait strategies. Materials and Methods: This prospective study evaluated oncological outcomes of NOM combined with 4 months of adjuvant capecitabine. Patients with resectable rectal cancer (≤ 8 cm from the anal verge, cT2-4 or N+) underwent CRT (50-54 Gy in 25-27 fractions with capecitabine). Eight weeks post-CRT, a multidisciplinary team assessed cCR. Patients achieving cCR received six cycles of capecitabine (2 weeks on/1 week off) and were actively monitored. Results: Among 89 patients receiving CRT (2018-2023), 17 (19.1%) achieved cCR and were included. The median age was 65 years, and 64.7% were male. Eleven (64.7%) completed all six cycles of adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 31.4 months, 11 patients (64.7%) remained disease-free. Local regrowth occurred in six patients (35.3%) with 2- and 4-year rates of 34.5% and 47.6%, respectively. Five underwent radical surgery, and one received transanal excision with systemic chemotherapy. At the time of assessment, 15 patients (88.2%) showed no evidence of disease, while two (11.8%) received palliative chemotherapy. All patients were alive. Conclusion NOM with adjuvant capecitabine showed promising oncological outcomes, offering an alternative to passive watch-and-wait approaches. Further refinement through multidisciplinary strategies is warranted.

Purpose: This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd) regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had been previously treated with both bortezomib- and lenalidomide-containing regimens. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 33 patients with RRMM who received the KCd regimen between March 2020 and February 2024. All patients had prior exposure to both bortezomib and lenalidomide, and the majority (93.9%) were refractory to lenalidomide. Carfilzomib was administered once weekly at 70 mg/m2 (after a step-up dose), along with oral cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. Treatment response was assessed according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Results: The overall response rate was 66.7%, including a complete response or better in 15.1% of patients and a very good partial response or better in 42.4%. With a median follow-up of 31.7 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.5 months (95% confidence interval, 11.47 to 15.53), while the median overall survival was not reached. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event was neutropenia (15.2%). Non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 toxicities were infrequent and manageable. Conclusion The weekly KCd regimen demonstrated encouraging efficacy and tolerability in a heavily pretreated RRMM population. These findings support its use as a feasible treatment option, particularly in patients refractory to lenalidomide.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.

Background: Although insulin resistance is common, its significance in kidney transplant recipients remains unclear. We explored clinical implications of the triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index as a marker for unfavorable allograft outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. Methods: A total of 6,354 kidney transplant recipients were enrolled in a multicenter prospective cohort study between May 2014 and December 2022. The TyG index was assessed between 6 and 12 months after transplantation. We evaluated the association between the TyG index and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes. Results: The cumulative rates of ≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), death-censored graft survival, and major adverse kidney events differed across TyG index quartiles, with the highest rate observed in quartile 4 (p < 0.001). TyG index quartile 4 was associated with the highest risk of death-censored graft loss after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28–3.55). The risk of ≥30% decline in eGFR was 1.46 times higher (95% CI, 1.17–1.82) in quartile 4 compared with quartile 1, and the risk of ≥50% decline was 1.78 times higher (95% CI, 1.30–2.44). Quartile 4 also showed a significantly steeper decline in renal function, with an adjusted mean difference in eGFR slope of –4.72 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, –7.39 to –2.04). Conclusion Kidney transplant recipients with high TyG index were at increased risk of eGFR decline and graft loss, and also exhibited a more rapid deterioration in renal function. The TyG index is a useful marker for identifying individuals at high risk for adverse graft outcomes.

Background: Posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) complicates kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) in morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to predict PTDM risk in KTRs using machine learning and deep learning models. Methods: Data were obtained from the Korea Organ Transplantation Registry, a nationwide cohort study of KTRs. Four machine learning algorithms, including eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), CatBoost, light gradient boosting machine and logistic regression, and deep learning were implemented on 41 pretransplant and 31 posttransplant variables to predict PTDM. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Results: Among 3,213 KTRs, 497 patients (15.5%) developed PTDM within 1 year. The PTDM group had higher age, body mass index (BMI), triglyceride level, and prevalence of hypertension and cardiovascular disease, and lower total cholesterol level at baseline than the No-PTDM group. The XGBoost model showed the highest AUC (0.738) and F1 score (0.42), and modest accuracy (0.86), while the CatBoost model exhibited the highest accuracy (0.87) and precision (0.79). Feature importance in XGBoost was highest for recipient age, followed by baseline BMI, triglyceride level at posttransplant 6 months, baseline glycated hemoglobin and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, white blood cell (WBC) count and serum uric acid level at 6 months, baseline WBC count, and tacrolimus trough level at discharge. Conclusion The XGBoost model demonstrated the best performance for predicting PTDM within 1 year, offering an accurate tool for early identification and personalized care of high-risk KTRs for PTDM.

Purpose: To report a nationwide survey on neuroblastoma conducted by the Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons (KAPS) in 2020. Methods: The clinical data of pediatric patients diagnosed with and treated for neuroblastoma from 2005 to 2019 in 19 hospitals of KAPS members were collected. Survival and prognostic factor analyses were performed using the log rank test and Cox proportional hazard analysis. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 669 patients with neuroblastoma were registered for the study. The results were presented and discussed at the 36th annual meeting of the KAPS, which was held in Seoul on August 21, 2020. Conclusion This study provides information on patient demographics, prognostic outcomes, and comprehensive treatment outcomes for neuroblastoma. The study is expected to be an important reference for improving pediatric surgeons’ understanding and treatment of neuroblastoma.

Purpose: To report the findings of a perception survey on intestinal malrotation conducted by the Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons (KAPS) in 2021. Methods: The perceptions on intestinal malrotation regarding clinical decision making of the KAPS members were collected through web-based survey. Results: A total of 22 surgeons were answered for this study. The results were presented and discussed at the 37th annual meeting of KAPS, which was held in Seoul on June 18, 2021. Conclusion This study provides the clinical decisions of the KAPS members on the intestinal malrotation. The study is expected to be an important reference for improving pediatric surgeons’ understanding and treatment of intestinal malrotation.

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.