Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Purpose: With neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) broadening the surgical indication for advanced pancreatic cancer, the growing use of robotic platforms in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) necessitates the evaluation of its feasibility in advanced pancreatic cancer patients who have undergone NAT. Methods: We compared clinicopathological outcomes of advanced pancreatic cancer patients who received either robotassisted or open PD after NAT at a tertiary hospital from 2015 to 2023. Propensity score matching was performed based on age, sex, and TNM staging. Results: Among 223 patients who received conversion surgery after NAT, 42 open PD and 14 robot-assisted PD patients were matched in a 3:1 ratio. There was a trend of shorter hospital stays (11.4 days vs. 9.8 days, P = 0.218) and less severe postoperative complications (21.4% vs. 7.1%; P = 0.227) in the robot-assisted PD group. Lymph node (LN) yield, LN metastasis rate, and R0 resection rates were similar between the 2 groups. The overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between the 2 groups were comparable (5-year OS rate: 55.7% vs. 72.7%, P = 0.264; 5-year DFS rate: 54.4% vs.58.4%, P = 0.759). Conclusion Robot-assisted PD offers comparable short-term and long-term outcomes to open PD, even in patients undergoing conversion surgery after NAT.

Objective: To establish the reference standard of the median nerve conduction study (NCS) in Korea. Methods: A total of 648 median motor and 602 median sensory NCSs from 349 Korean healthy volunteers were tested and analyzed prospectively. Equipment calibration, assessment of intraand inter-rater reliability, and the NCSs per se were conducted according to a predetermined protocol. A reference standard was established from uncertainty components for the following parameters: the onset and peak latencies; the baseline-to-peak and peak-to-peak amplitudes; the area and duration of the negative wave; and the nerve conduction velocity. The effects of sex, age and stimulation intensity were analyzed. Results: Each measured value of 648 median motor and 602 median sensory nerves were obtained and presented with both mean and expanded uncertainties, as well as mean and standard deviations. The cut-off values with expanded uncertainty were determined for different age and sex groups. After adjusting for anthropometric covariates, all parameters except duration were affected by age, and sex appeared to influence both duration and area. While stimulation intensity significantly affected some parameters including latencies, the effect sizes were negligible. Conclusion We propose the median NCS reference standard using the largest Korean dataset ever available. The use of the traceable and reliable reference standard is anticipated to promote more accurate and dependable diagnosis and appropriate management of median neuropathies in Korea.

Background: and Purpose This study aimed to determine the neuropsychological differences between patients with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) with a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score of ≤1. Methods: We examined 168 patients with AD (126 with CDR score=0.5, 42 with CDR score=1) and 169 patients with DLB (104 with CDR score=0.5, 65 with CDR score=1) whose diagnoses were supported by 18F-flobetaben positron-emission tomography (PET) and 18F-N-(3-fluoropropyl)-2β-carbon ethoxy-3β-(4-iodophenyl) nortropane PET. Neuropsychological test scores were compared after controlling for age, sex, and education duration. Using a cutoff motor score on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale of 20, patients with AD were further divided into AD with parkinsonism (ADP+ , n=86) and AD without parkinsonism (ADP− , n=82). Results: At CDR scores of both 0.5 and 1, the DLB group had lower scores on the attention (digit-span forward at CDR score=0.5 and backward at CDR score=1), visuospatial, and executive (color reading Stroop test at CDR score=0.5 and phonemic fluency test, Stroop tests, and digit symbol coding at CDR score=1) tests than the AD group, but higher scores on the memory tests. The ADP− and ADP+ subgroups had comparable scores on most neuropsychological tests, but the ADP+ subgroup had lower scores on the color reading Stroop test. Conclusions Patients with DLB had worse attention, visuospatial, and executive functions but better memory function than patients with AD. Parkinsonism was not uncommon in the patients with AD and could be related to attention and executive dysfunction.