Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background: Primary cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders (pcCD30-LPDs) are a diseases with various clinical and prognostic characteristics. Objective: Increasing our knowledge of the clinical characteristics of pcCD30-LPDs and identifying potential prognostic variables in an Asian population. Methods: Clinicopathological features and survival data of pcCD30-LPD cases obtained from 22 hospitals in South Korea were examined. Results: A total of 413 cases of pcCD30-LPDs (lymphomatoid papulosis [LYP], n=237; primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma [C-ALCL], n=176) were included. Ninety percent of LYP patients and roughly 50% of C-ALCL patients presented with multiple skin lesions. Both LYP and C-ALCL affected the lower limbs most frequently. Multiplicity and advanced T stage of LYP lesions were associated with a chronic course longer than 6 months. Clinical morphology with patch lesions and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase were significantly associated with LPDs during follow-up in LYP patients. Extracutaneous involvement of C-ALCL occurred in 13.2% of patients. Lesions larger than 5 cm and increased serum lactate dehydrogenase were associated with a poor prognosis in C-ALCL. The survival of patients with C-ALCL was unaffected by the anatomical locations of skin lesions or other pathological factors. Conclusion The multiplicity or size of skin lesions was associated with a chronic course of LYP and survival among patients with C-ALCL.

Background: More than half of acne patients have truncal acne on their chest, back, and shoulders. However, since most studies on acne have focused on the face, data on clinical characteristics and proper management for truncal acne are insufficient. Objective: To establish a Korean Acne Rosacea Society (KARS) consensus for experts’ perception and treatment patterns of truncal acne. Methods: We conducted two rounds of the Dephi technique to gather expert opinion and reach a consensus on truncal acne. The first round comprised 48 questionnaires focusing on various aspects such as epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and more, while second rounds consisted of 26 questionnaires. Results: A total of 36 dermatologists (36/38 KARS members, 94.7%) completed this survey. In the first-round survey, consensus was reached on 20 out of the 48 questions (41.7%). In the secondround questionnaire, consensus was achieved on 9 of the 26 questions (34.6%). The most unresponsive lesion to truncal acne treatment was scars (atrophic/hypertrophic). The most commonly used treatments for each non-inflammatory and inflammatory truncal acne lesions were selected to use topical retinoids (78.1% of the responders) and oral antibiotics (93.8% of the responders). Conclusion Our study has yielded valuable insights into the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and quality of life of patients with truncal acne. We anticipate that this study will inspire further comprehensive research for individuals with truncal acne.

Purpose: Mutations in the PIK3CA gene occur frequently in breast cancer patients. Activating PIK3CA mutations confer resistance to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted treatments. In this study, we investigated whether PIK3CA mutations were correlated with treatment response or duration in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical information of patients with HER2+ breast cancer who received HER2-targeted therapy for early-stage or metastatic cancers. The pathologic complete response (pCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were compared between patients with wild-type PIK3CA (PIK3CAw) and those with mutated PIK3CA (PIK3CAm). Next-generation sequencing was combined with examination of PFS associated with anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment. Results: Data from 90 patients with HER2+ breast cancer were analyzed. Overall, 34 (37.8%) patients had pathogenic PIK3CA mutations. The pCR rate of the PIK3CAm group was lower than that of the PIK3CAw group among patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage cancer. In the metastatic setting, the PIK3CAm group showed a significantly shorter mean PFS (mPFS) with first-line anti-HER2 mAb. The mPFS of second-line T-DM1 was lower in the PIK3CAm group than that in the PIK3CAw group. Sequencing revealed differences in the mutational landscape between PIK3CAm and PIK3CAw tumors. Conclusion Patients with HER2+ breast cancer with activating PIK3CA mutations had lower pCR rates and shorter PFS with palliative HER2-targeted therapy than those with wild-type PIK3CA. Precise targeted-therapy is needed to improve survival of patients with HER2+/PIK3CAm breast cancer.

Purpose: BRCA1 and BRCA2 are among the most important genes involved in DNA repair via homologous recombination (HR). Germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-related cancers have specific characteristics and treatment options but conducting gBRCA1/2 testing and interpreting the genetic imprint are sometimes complicated. Here, we describe the concordance of gBRCA1/2 derived from a panel of clinical tumor tissues using next-generation sequencing (NGS) and genetic aspects of tumors harboring gBRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Materials and Methods: Targeted sequencing was performed using available tumor tissue from patients who underwent gBRCA1/2 testing. Comparative genomic analysis was performed according to gBRCA1/2 pathogenicity. Results: A total of 321 patients who underwent gBRCA1/2 testing were screened, and 26 patients with gBRCA1/2 pathogenic (gBRCA1/2p) variants, eight patients with gBRCA1/2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS; gBRCA1/2v), and 43 patients with gBRCA1/2 wild-type (gBRCA1/2w) were included in analysis. Mutations in TP53 (49.4%) and PIK3CA (23.4%) were frequently detected in all samples. The number of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) per tumor tissue was higher in the gBRCA1/2w group than that in the gBRCA1/2p group (14.81 vs. 18.86, p=0.278). Tumor mutation burden (TMB) was significantly higher in the gBRCA1/2w group than in the gBRCA1/2p group (10.21 vs. 13.47, p=0.017). Except for BRCA1/2, other HR-related genes were frequently mutated in patients with gBRCA1/2w. Conclusion We demonstrated high sensitivity of gBRCA1/2 in tumors analyzed by NGS using a panel of tumor tissues. TMB value and aberration of non-BRCA1/2 HR-related genes differed significantly according to gBRCA1/2 pathogenicity in patients with breast cancer.