Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Objective: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD. Methods: We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges’s g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges’s g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges’s g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%). Conclusion NPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Purpose: This single-arm phase II trial investigate the efficacy and safety of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes were enrolled. Patients received S-1 (40-60 mg depending on patient’s body surface area, twice a day, day 1-14) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, day 1) in 3 weeks cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1. Secondary endpoints included time-to-progression (TTP), duration-of-response (DoR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled from 11 institutions in Korea. Hormone receptor was positive in 54 (62.1%) patients and six (6.9%) had human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease. Forty-eight patients (85.1%) had visceral metastasis and 74 (55.2%) had more than three sites of metastases. The ORR of SOX regimen was 38.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.9 to 50.0) with a median TTP of 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 6.9). Median DoR and OS were 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 15.1) and 19.4 (95% CI, not estimated) months, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was reported in 28 patients (32.1%) and thrombocytopenia was observed in 23 patients (26.6%). Conclusion This phase II study showed that SOX regimen is a reasonable option in metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

Breast cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in women worldwide. Early and precise diagnosis is crucial, and clinical outcomes can be markedly enhanced. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has ushered in a new era, notably in image analysis, paving the way for major advancements in breast cancer diagnosis and individualized treatment regimens. In the diagnostic workflow for patients with breast cancer, the role of AI encompasses screening, diagnosis, staging, biomarker evaluation, prognostication, and therapeutic response prediction. Although its potential is immense, its complete integration into clinical practice is challenging. Particularly, these challenges include the imperatives for extensive clinical validation, model generalizability, navigating the “black-box” conundrum, and pragmatic considerations of embedding AI into everyday clinical environments. In this review, we comprehensively explored the diverse applications of AI in breast cancer care, underlining its transformative promise and existing impediments. In radiology, we specifically address AI in mammography, tomosynthesis, risk prediction models, and supplementary imaging methods, including magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound. In pathology, our focus is on AI applications for pathologic diagnosis, evaluation of biomarkers, and predictions related to genetic alterations, treatment response, and prognosis in the context of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Our discussion underscores the transformative potential of AI in breast cancer management and emphasizes the importance of focused research to realize the full spectrum of benefits of AI in patient care.

Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the antidepressant effects of capsaicin in chronic depressive rats and elucidate the mechanism underlying its effects. Methods: Male Wistar rats (280~320 g, 8 weeks of age) were subjected to depression induced by chronic unpredictable mild stresses. The rats were exposed to 8 kinds of stresses for 8 weeks. In the last 2 weeks, fluoxetine or capsaicin was injected subcutaneously. The dose of fluoxetine was 10 mg/kg (body weight), while the doses of capsaicin consisted of low (1 mg/kg), middle (5 mg/kg), and high (10 mg/kg). The forced swim test (FST) was conducted to evaluate the immobility time of rats. The immobility time indicates despair, one of symptoms of depression. The change of tryptophan hydroxylase (TPH) in the dorsal raphe was investigated using immunohistochemistry. In the hippocampus cornu ammonis (CA) 1 and 3, glucocorticoid receptor (GR) expression was measured. Results: The immobility time in the FST was significantly lower (p < .05) in the low-dose (M = 32.40 ± 13.41 seconds) and middle-dose (M = 28.48 ± 19.57 seconds) groups than in the non-treated depressive rats (M = 90.19 ± 45.34 seconds). The amount of TPH in the dorsal raphe was significantly higher (p < .05) in the middle-dose (M = 249.17 ± 35.02) and high-dose (M = 251.0 ± 56.85) groups than in the non-treated depressive rats (M = 159.78 ± 41.16). However, GR expression in the hippocampus CA1 and CA3 did not show significant differences between the non-treated depressive rats and the capsaicin-injected rats. Conclusion This study suggests that capsaicin produces an antidepressant-like effect on chronic unpredictable mild stress-induced depression in rats via the serotonin biosynthesis pathway.

Background/Aims: Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a rare salivary gland tumor characterized by indolence, with a high rate of local recurrence and distant metastasis. This study aimed to investigate the effect of concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) on locally advanced unresectable ACC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 10 patients with pathologically confirmed ACC of the head and neck who received CCRT with cisplatin in Seoul National University Hospital between 2013 and 2018. Results: Ten patients with unresectable disease at the time of diagnosis or with positive margins after surgical resection received CCRT with weekly cisplatin. Eight patients (80%) achieved complete remission, of which three later developed distant metastases without local relapse; one patient developed distant metastasis and local relapse. Two patient achieved partial remission without progression. Patients experienced several toxicities, including dry mouth, radiation dermatitis, nausea, and salivary gland inflammation of mostly grade 1 to 2. Only one patient showed grade 3 oral mucositis. Median relapse-free survival was 34.5 months (95% confidence interval, 22.8 months to not reached). Conclusions CCRT with cisplatin is effective for local control of ACC with manageable toxicity and may be an effective treatment option for locally advanced unresectable ACC.

Background/Aims: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, a validated predictive biomarker for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, is reported to change over time. This poses challenges during clinical application in non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: This study included patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent surgery or biopsy and evaluation of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells via immunohistochemistry more than twice. We set the threshold of PD-L1 positivity to 10% and categorized patients into four groups according to changes in PD-L1 expression. Clinicopathologic information was collected from medical records. Statistical analyses, including Fisher’s exact test and log-rank test, were performed. Results: Of 109 patients, 38 (34.9%) and 45 (41.3%) had PD-L1 positivity in archival and recent samples, respectively. PD-L1 status was maintained in 78 (71.6%) patients, but changed in 31 (28.4%), with 19 (17.4%) from negative to positive. There were no significant differences in characteristics between patients who maintained PD-L1 negativity and whose PD-L1 status changed from negative to positive. Patients harboring PD-L1 positivity in either archival or recent samples achieved better responses (p = 0.129) and showed longer overall survival than those who maintained PD-L1 negativity when they received immune checkpoint inhibitors after platinum failure (median overall survival 14.4 months vs. 4.93 months; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.93). Conclusions PD-L1 status changed in about one-fourth of patients. PD-L1 positivity in either archival or recent samples was predictive of better responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, archival samples could be used for assessment of PD-L1 status. The need for new biopsies should be decided individually.