Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Purpose: Limited treatment options exist for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after the failure of taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy. Here, we report the safety and efficacy of ifosfamide and mesna in patients with mCRPC after the failure of taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy (NCT06236789). Materials and Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer who had failed taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy received ifosfamide 2,500 mg/m2 and mesna 1,500 mg/m2 on days 1–3, repeated every 21 days. Safety, objective response rate, disease control rate, reduction in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration by >50% (PSA50) or >90% (PSA90), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Results: A total of 47 patients with mCRPC were included in the study. The median number of lines of treatment was 5 (range, 3 to 7). All patients were previously administered docetaxel and novel hormonal therapies including abiraterone (51.1%) and/or enzalutamide (61.7%). Thirty-eight patients (80.9%) were administered cabazitaxel. The objective response and disease control rates were 21.3% and 80.9%, respectively. PSA50 and PSA90 were achieved in 31.9% and 10.6%, respectively. During a median follow-up duration of 54.3 months, rPFS and OS were 5.0 and 9.0 months, respectively. All the patients experienced treatment-related adverse events of any grades; however, no new safety signs were detected. Genomic biomarker analysis revealed that alterations in the TP53 pathway were associated with inferior rPFS and OS. Conclusion Ifosfamide and mesna showed appreciable efficacy and manageable safety profiles in heavily treated patients with mCRPC.

Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

Objective: This study aimed to compare aneuploidy rates and clinical outcomes between trophectoderm biopsy at fresh blastocyst (biopsy-fresh) followed by vitrification and biopsy at vitrified-warmed blastocyst (biopsy-vitri) followed by next day transfer (without re-vitrification). Methods: This retrospective study included 844 patients undergoing 844 cycles conducted from August 2019 to December 2023. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) was performed via trophectoderm biopsy using array comparative genomic hybridization or next-generation sequencing for comprehensive 24-chromosome screening. Patients were divided into two groups based on the blastocyst status at the time of biopsy: the biopsy-fresh group (531 patients) and the biopsy-vitri group (313 patients). Results: The clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the biopsy-fresh group compared to the biopsy-vitri group (58.7% vs. 45.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.695; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.215 to 2.364; p=0.002). Furthermore, the biopsy-fresh group showed higher implantation rates (45.6% vs. 32.1%; OR, 1.767; 95% CI, 1.274 to 2.451; p=0.002), ongoing pregnancy or live birth rates per cycle (48.0% vs. 35.8%; OR, 1.652; 95% CI, 1.177 to 2.319; p=0.004), and rates of good-quality blastocysts (57.1% vs. 32.1%, p<0.001) compared with the biopsy-vitri group. Miscarriage rates did not differ significantly between the groups (18.2% vs. 21.4%; OR, 0.818; 95% CI, 0.457 to 1.465; p=0.501). Conclusion Biopsy at fresh blastocyst demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared with biopsy at vitrified-warmed blastocyst, likely due to better embryo quality. Both biopsy at fresh blastocyst and vitrified-warmed blastocyst remain viable options for PGT-A, with biopsy at vitrified-warmed blastocyst serving as a practical alternative. Embryo quality and euploid status continue to be critical considerations for embryo transfer selection.

Objective: Acute coronary syndrome often requires urgent intervention. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend invasive procedures within 24 hours for high-risk cases. Nevertheless, there have been limited studies on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in South Korea. This study compared the risk of complications based on the timing of intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T from January to December 2021 in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into early (≤24 hr) and late (>24 hr) intervention groups. Primary outcomes (death, restenosis, or stroke) at 12 months were compared. Survival and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the factors affecting the outcomes in the two groups. Results: Three hundred seventy six patients were enrolled in the study, and 115 patients were excluded. Among 261 patients, 106 and 155 patients were in the early intervention group (≤24 hr), and late intervention group (>24 hr), respectively. The primary outcome (death or restenosis) showed no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] in the early intervention group at 12 mo; 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.70; P=0.905). However, risk of stroke was lower in the early intervention group (HR in the early, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.66; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis showed no significant advantage for early intervention. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, early intervention does not reduce death or restenosis but lowers stroke incidence. No specific risk factors favored early intervention.

Objective: Acute coronary syndrome often requires urgent intervention. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend invasive procedures within 24 hours for high-risk cases. Nevertheless, there have been limited studies on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in South Korea. This study compared the risk of complications based on the timing of intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T from January to December 2021 in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into early (≤24 hr) and late (>24 hr) intervention groups. Primary outcomes (death, restenosis, or stroke) at 12 months were compared. Survival and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the factors affecting the outcomes in the two groups. Results: Three hundred seventy six patients were enrolled in the study, and 115 patients were excluded. Among 261 patients, 106 and 155 patients were in the early intervention group (≤24 hr), and late intervention group (>24 hr), respectively. The primary outcome (death or restenosis) showed no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] in the early intervention group at 12 mo; 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.70; P=0.905). However, risk of stroke was lower in the early intervention group (HR in the early, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.66; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis showed no significant advantage for early intervention. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, early intervention does not reduce death or restenosis but lowers stroke incidence. No specific risk factors favored early intervention.