Purpose: This paper aimed to investigate the levels and predictors of moral distress, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction among nurses caring for patients with cancer and to identify predictors for the variables. Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive correlational study was conducted on 245 nurses from hospitals in South Korea. Data was collected through online surveys from May to June 2025. Variables were measured using the Korean version of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised and the Professional Quality of Life Scale-5. Data were analyzed using a t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and multiple regression analysis. Results: Nurses reported moderate-to-high levels of moral distress, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction, with religious affiliation predicting lower moral distress. Nurses with 3~5 years of experience caring for cancer patients exhibited lower moral distress than those with less than 3 years of experience. Employment in tertiary hospitals and the availability of support programs were predictors of lower moral distress, while caring for cancer patients throughout one’s career predicted higher moral distress. Advanced practice nurses, nurses providing advanced clinical support, and nurses who had completed self-care education were predictors of greater compassion fatigue. In contrast, religious affiliation, having more than five years of nursing experience, and possession of additional oncology nursing certifications significantly explained the variance in compassion satisfaction among nurses. Conclusion Moral distress, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction varied by nurses’ personal and professional characteristics. Multilevel interventions, including structured self-care education and institutional support systems, are needed to alleviate emotional burden and promote professional well-being among oncology nurses.

The impact of age on the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients is not clearly understood. Using data from the Korean Renal Data System (2001–2022), we analyzed 66,129 HD patients, stratified into young (<65 years, n = 24,589), younger-old (65–74 years, n = 17,732), and older-old (≥75 years, n = 23,808) groups. Patients were categorized into BMI quartiles, and survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and event time ratios for the relative change in the survival time. During the follow-up period, 14,360 of the patients (21.7%) died, with a median follow-up of 3.4 years. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed poorer outcomes in lower BMI quartiles across all age groups. The lowest BMI quartile was significantly associated with a shorter survival time compared to the highest BMI quartile, with a 15% reduction in the young group (p = 0.001) and a 12% reduction in the older-old group (p = 0.002). Predicted survival time increases with rising BMI in the young group, but the rate of increase slows in the younger-old group and plateaus in the older-old group after a BMI of 25 kg/m2. Lower BMI correlates with higher mortality, particularly in younger HD patients.

Purpose: GC1118 is a novel antibody targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with enhanced blocking activity against both low- and high-affinity EGFR ligands. A phase 1b/2a study was conducted to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of GC1118 in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) (phase 1b) and to assess the safety and efficacy of GC1118 plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy for recurrent/metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) (phase 2a). Materials and Methods: Phase 1b was designed as a standard 3+3 dose-escalation study with a starting dose of GC1118 (3 mg/kg/week) in combination with biweekly FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2; leucovorin 400 mg/m2; 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and 2,400 mg/m2 infusion over 46 hours) in patients with solid tumors refractory to standard treatments. The subsequent phase 2a part was conducted with objective response rate (ORR) as a primary endpoint. Patients with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF wild-type, EGFR-positive, recurrent/metastatic CRC resistant to the first-line treatment were enrolled in the phase 2a study. Results: RP2D of GC1118 was determined to be 3 mg/kg/wk in the phase 1b study (n=7). Common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) observed in the phase 2a study (n=24) were acneiform rash (95.8%), dry skin (66.7%), paronychia (58.3%), and stomatitis (50.0%). The most common ADR of ≥ grade 3 was neutropenia (33.3%). ORR was 42.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.5 to 62.0), and median progression-free survival was 6.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-8.0). Conclusion GC1118 administered weekly at 3 mg/kg in combination with FOLFIRI appears as an effective and safe treatment option in recurrent/metastatic CRC.

This study was conducted to investigate potential differences in vaccine efficacy between patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy and receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the study proved the influence of vaccination timing on vaccine efficacy during active chemotherapy. Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG binding antibody assays and surrogate neutralizing antibody assays were performed after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination in 45 solid cancer patients (23 adjuvant and 22 palliative chemotherapy) and in 24 healthy controls before vaccination (baseline), at every two to four weeks after the first (post-dose 1) and the second vaccination (post-dose 2). The levels of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly from baseline through post-dose 1 to post-dose 2 in all three groups. At the post-dose 1, the anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibody levels were significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy controls. However, by post-dose 2, the seropositivity of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies uniformly reached 100% across all groups, with no significant disparity in antibody levels among the three groups. Moreover, the antibody titers were not significantly different between patients with a vaccine and chemotherapy interval of more than 14 days or those with less than 14 days. This study demonstrated that after second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, humoral immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were comparable to those of healthy controls, regardless of whether the purpose of the anti-cancer treatment was palliative or adjuvant. Furthermore, the timing of vaccination did not affect the level of humoral immunity after the second vaccination.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Background: Molecular cancer profiling may lead to appropriate trials for molecularly targeted therapies. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a promising diagnostic and/or prognostic biomarker in gastric cancer (GC). We characterized somatic genomic alterations in cfDNA of patients with GC. Methods: Medical records and cfDNA data of 81 patients diagnosed as having GC were reviewed. Forty-nine and 32 patients were tested using the Oncomine Pan-Cancer CellFree Assay on the Ion Torrent platform and AlphaLiquid 100 kit on the Illumina platform, respectively. Results: Tier I or II alterations were detected in 64.2% (52/81) of patients. Biomarkers for potential targeted therapy were detected in 55.6% of patients (45/81), and clinical trials are underway. ERBB2 amplification is actionable and was detected in 4.9% of patients (4/81). Among biomarkers showing potential for possible targeted therapy, TP53 mutation (38.3%, 35 variants in 31 patients, 31/81) and FGFR2 amplification (6.2%, 5/81) were detected the most. Conclusions Next-generation sequencing of cfDNA is a promising technique for the molecular profiling of GC. Evidence suggests that cfDNA analysis can provide accurate and reliable information on somatic genomic alterations in patients with GC, potentially replacing tissue biopsy as a diagnostic and prognostic tool. Through cfDNA analysis for molecular profiling, it may be possible to translate the molecular classification into therapeutic targets and predictive biomarkers, leading to personalized treatment options for patients with GC in the future.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a promising tool for various clinical applications, including early diagnosis, therapeutic target identification, treatment response monitoring, prognosis evaluation, and minimal residual disease detection. Consequently, ctDNA assays have been incorporated into clinical practice. In this review, we offer an indepth exploration of the clinical implementation of ctDNA assays. Notably, we examined existing evidence related to pre-analytical procedures, analytical components in current technologies, and result interpretation and reporting processes. The primary objective of this guidelines is to provide recommendations for the clinical utilization of ctDNA assays.

Background: BRCA testing is necessary for establishing a management strategy for ovarian cancer. Several BRCA testing strategies, including germline and somatic testing, are implemented in clinical practice in Korea. We aimed to comparatively evaluate their cost-effectiveness from patients’ perspective. Methods: We developed a decision model comprising five BRCA testing strategies implemented in Korea: (1) germline testing first, followed by somatic tumor testing for patients without a germline variant; (2) somatic testing first, followed by germline testing for patients with a variant detected by somatic testing; (3) both germline and somatic testing; (4) germline testing alone; and (5) somatic testing alone, with no testing as the comparator. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the uncertainty of key parameters. Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay of $20,000 per progression-free life-year gain (PF-LYG), all five strategies were considered cost-effective. Strategy 4 was the most cost-effective option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2,547.7 per PF-LYG, followed by strategy 1, with an ICER of $3,978.4 per PF-LYG. Even when the parameter values were varied within the possible range, the ICERs of all strategies did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusions Considering the importance of knowing a patient’s BRCA gene status, germline testing first, followed by somatic testing, may be a reasonable option.