Purpose: Current clinical practices favor less or no thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) suppression for low- to intermediate-risk thyroid cancer patients who receive thyroid lobectomy. The association of TSH suppression on healthrelated quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients after thyroid lobectomy is not well studied. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of TSH suppression on patient HR-QoL after thyroid lobectomy. Methods: This study included patients enrolled in an ongoing, multicenter, randomized controlled study investigating the effects of TSH suppression. Patients were randomized to either the low-TSH group (TSH target range, 0.3–1.99 μIU/ mL) or the high-TSH group (TSH target range, 2.0–7.99 μIU/mL). The HR-QoL, hyperthyroidism symptom, and depression symptom questionnaires performed preoperatively and 2 weeks and 3 months postoperatively were evaluated. Results: Total of 669 patients (low-TSH group, 340; high-TSH group, 329) were included. Although total HR-QoL score changes were not different between the 2 groups, the high-TSH group had a significantly higher score in the physical domain at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.046). The 2 groups did not have significant differences in hyperthyroidism and depression scores. Conclusion In the short-term postoperative period, the physical HR-QoL scores in thyroid lobectomy patients were better when they did not receive TSH suppression. This study suggests the importance of considering HR-QoL when setting TSH suppression targets in thyroid lobectomy patients.

Purpose: Despite the increasing use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), its oncologic safety in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) needs to be comprehensively clarified in breast cancer management. The objective of the present study was to analyze the oncologic safety of IBR following NACT. Methods: In total, 587 patients with breast cancer who underwent a total mastectomy (TM) with IBR after NACT between 2008 and 2017 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The reviewed patients with IBR following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) were matched 1:3 to patients who underwent TM alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stages before NACT, response to NACT, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. Results: After propensity score matching, 95 patients who underwent IBR following SSM/ NSM after NACT (IBR group) and 228 patients who underwent TM alone after NACT (TM group) were selected. The median follow-up period was 73 (range, 5–181) months after matching. After matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (88.8% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.516), disease-free survival (67.3% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.099), distant metastasis-free survival (71.9% vs. 81.9%, p = 0.057), or overall survival (84.1% vs. 91.5, p = 0.061) rates. In multivariate analyses, conducting IBR was not associated with increased risks for locoregional recurrence, any recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall death. Conclusion Our findings suggest that IBR following SSM/NSM elicits comparable long-term oncologic outcomes to those of TM alone in the setting of NACT.

Purpose: K-MASTER project is a Korean national precision medicine platform that screened actionable mutations by analyzing next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumor patients. We compared gene analyses between NGS panel from the K-MASTER project and orthogonal methods. Materials and Methods: Colorectal, breast, non–small cell lung, and gastric cancer patients were included. We compared NGS results from K-MASTER projects with those of non-NGS orthogonal methods (KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer [CRC]; epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR], anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] fusion, and reactive oxygen species 1 [ROS1] fusion in non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], and Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) positivity in breast and gastric cancers). Results: In the CRC cohort (n=225), the sensitivity and specificity of NGS were 87.4% and 79.3% (KRAS); 88.9% and 98.9% (NRAS); and 77.8% and 100.0% (BRAF), respectively. In the NSCLC cohort (n=109), the sensitivity and specificity of NGS for EGFR were 86.2% and 97.5%, respectively. The concordance rate for ALK fusion was 100%, but ROS1 fusion was positive in only one of three cases that were positive in orthogonal tests. In the breast cancer cohort (n=260), ERBB2 amplification was detected in 45 by NGS. Compared with orthogonal methods that integrated immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization, sensitivity and specificity were 53.7% and 99.4%, respectively. In the gastric cancer cohort (n=64), ERBB2 amplification was detected in six by NGS. Compared with orthogonal methods, sensitivity and specificity were 62.5% and 98.2%, respectively. Conclusion The results of the K-MASTER NGS panel and orthogonal methods showed a different degree of agreement for each genetic alteration, but generally showed a high agreement rate.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Since the first case was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on December 12, 2019, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread widely to other countries since January 2020. As of April 16, 2020, 10635 confirmed cases have been reported, with 230 deaths in Korea. COVID-19 patients may be asymptomatic or show various clinical manifestations, including acute symptoms such as fever, fatigue, sore throat; pneumonia presenting as acute respiratory distress syndrome; and multiple organ failure. As COVID-19 has such varied clinical manifestations and case fatality rates, no standard antiviral therapy regimen has been established other than supportive therapy. In the present guideline, we aim to introduce potentially helpful antiviral and other drug therapies based on in vivo and in vitro research and clinical experiences from many countries.