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.

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: Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) represents a devastating and growing global threat, calling for new antibiotic treatments. In Korea, the challenge of treating CRAB is compounded by high nosocomial acquisition rates and limited availability of novel antibiotics. Minocycline, a semisynthetic tetracycline derivative, has been proposed as a therapeutic option for CRAB infections. Nonsusceptibility to minocycline may occur through the efflux pump, TetB. The prevalence of tetB in A. baumannii has increased, along with higher minocycline minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs). We aimed to evaluate minocycline susceptibility rates in clinical strains of CRAB, and the association between tetB carriage and minocycline susceptibility across different genotypes. Materials and Methods: Representative CRAB blood isolates were collected from Asan Medical Center, Seoul.Minocycline susceptibility was assessed using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoint (≤4 mg/L) and the proposed pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) breakpoint (≤1 mg/L). Tigecycline was used as a comparator, and its susceptibility breakpoint for Enterobacterales defined by EUCAST was applied (≤0.5 mg/L).The presence of tetB was detected by PCR, and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was performed using seven housekeeping genes. Results: Of the 160 CRAB blood isolates, 83.8% were susceptible to minocycline by the CLSI criteria, and 50.6% were PK-PD susceptible by the PK-PD criteria. The minocycline minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)50 /MIC90 was 1/8 mg/L. tetB was present in 49% of isolates and was associated with a higher minocycline MIC (MIC50/90 2/8 mg/L vs. 1/2 mg/L). No clear correlation was observed between tetB positivity and tigecycline MIC. Nine MLSTs were identified, with significant differences in tetB carriage rates between the major sequence types. Notably, ST191, associated with non-tetB carriage and greater susceptibility to minocycline, declined over the study period (P=0.004), while ST451, associated with tetB carriage, increased. Conclusion tetB was present in 49% of CRAB isolates and was associated with higher MICs and non-susceptibility by both CLSI and PK-PD criteria. However, absence of tetB was not a reliable predictor of minocycline PK-PD susceptibility. Additionally, shifts over time towards genotypes with reduced minocycline susceptibility were observed. Further research is needed to correlate these findings with clinical outcomes and identify additional resistance mechanisms.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 for predicting mortality and liver-related complications compared with the Child-Pugh classification, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, the MELD, and the MELD sodium (MELDNa) score. Methods: We evaluated a multicenter retrospective cohort of incorporated patients with cirrhosis between 2013 and 2019. We conducted comparisons of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the MELD3.0 and other models for predicting 3-month mortality. Additionally, we assessed the risk of cirrhosis-related complications according to the MELD3.0 score. Results: A total of 3,314 patients were included. The mean age was 55.9±11.3 years, and 70.2% of the patients were male. Within the initial 3 months, 220 patients (6.6%) died, and the MELD3.0had the best predictive performance among the tested models, with an AUROC of 0.851, outperforming the Child-Pugh classification, ALBI grade, MELD, and MELDNa. A high MELD3.0score was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Compared with that of the group with a MELD3.0 score <10 points, the adjusted hazard ratio of the group with a score of 10–20 pointswas 2.176, and that for the group with a score of ≥20 points was 4.892. Each 1-point increase inthe MELD3.0 score increased the risk of cirrhosis-related complications by 1.033-fold. The risk of hepatorenal syndrome showed the highest increase, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.149, followed by hepatic encephalopathy and ascites. Conclusions The MELD3.0 demonstrated robust prognostic performance in predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Moreover, the MELD3.0 score was linked to cirrhosis-related complications, particularly those involving kidney function, such as hepatorenal syndrome and ascites.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

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.