Background/Aims: Elevated troponin levels predict in-hospital mortality and influence decisions regarding thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the usefulness of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) regarding PE remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the optimal cut-off level and compare its performance for precise risk stratification. Methods: 374 patients diagnosed with acute PE were reviewed. PE-related adverse outcomes, a composite of PE-related deaths, cardiopulmonary resuscitation incidents, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and all-cause mortality within 30 days were evaluated. The optimal hsTnT cut-off for all-cause mortality, and the net reclassification index (NRI) was used to assess the incremental value in risk stratification. Results: Among 343 normotensive patients, 17 (5.0%) experienced all-cause mortality, while 40 (10.7%) had PE-related adverse outcomes. An optimal hsTnT cut-off value of 60 ng/L for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.85, p < 0.001) was identified, which was significantly associated with PE-related adverse outcomes (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.06–8.06, p < 0.001). Patients with hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L were older, hypotensive, had higher creatinine levels, and right ventricular dysfunction signs. Combining hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L with simplified pulmonary embolism severity index ≥1 provided additional prognostic information. Reclassification analysis showed a significant shift in risk categories, with an NRI of 1.016 ± 0.201 (p < 0.001). Conclusions We refined troponin’s predictive value in patients with acute PE, proposing a new cut-off value of hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L. Validation through large-scale studies is essential to offer clinically useful guidance for managing patient population.

Background/Aims: Elevated troponin levels predict in-hospital mortality and influence decisions regarding thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the usefulness of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) regarding PE remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the optimal cut-off level and compare its performance for precise risk stratification. Methods: 374 patients diagnosed with acute PE were reviewed. PE-related adverse outcomes, a composite of PE-related deaths, cardiopulmonary resuscitation incidents, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and all-cause mortality within 30 days were evaluated. The optimal hsTnT cut-off for all-cause mortality, and the net reclassification index (NRI) was used to assess the incremental value in risk stratification. Results: Among 343 normotensive patients, 17 (5.0%) experienced all-cause mortality, while 40 (10.7%) had PE-related adverse outcomes. An optimal hsTnT cut-off value of 60 ng/L for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.85, p < 0.001) was identified, which was significantly associated with PE-related adverse outcomes (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.06–8.06, p < 0.001). Patients with hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L were older, hypotensive, had higher creatinine levels, and right ventricular dysfunction signs. Combining hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L with simplified pulmonary embolism severity index ≥1 provided additional prognostic information. Reclassification analysis showed a significant shift in risk categories, with an NRI of 1.016 ± 0.201 (p < 0.001). Conclusions We refined troponin’s predictive value in patients with acute PE, proposing a new cut-off value of hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L. Validation through large-scale studies is essential to offer clinically useful guidance for managing patient population.

Background/Aims: Elevated troponin levels predict in-hospital mortality and influence decisions regarding thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the usefulness of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) regarding PE remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the optimal cut-off level and compare its performance for precise risk stratification. Methods: 374 patients diagnosed with acute PE were reviewed. PE-related adverse outcomes, a composite of PE-related deaths, cardiopulmonary resuscitation incidents, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and all-cause mortality within 30 days were evaluated. The optimal hsTnT cut-off for all-cause mortality, and the net reclassification index (NRI) was used to assess the incremental value in risk stratification. Results: Among 343 normotensive patients, 17 (5.0%) experienced all-cause mortality, while 40 (10.7%) had PE-related adverse outcomes. An optimal hsTnT cut-off value of 60 ng/L for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.85, p < 0.001) was identified, which was significantly associated with PE-related adverse outcomes (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.06–8.06, p < 0.001). Patients with hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L were older, hypotensive, had higher creatinine levels, and right ventricular dysfunction signs. Combining hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L with simplified pulmonary embolism severity index ≥1 provided additional prognostic information. Reclassification analysis showed a significant shift in risk categories, with an NRI of 1.016 ± 0.201 (p < 0.001). Conclusions We refined troponin’s predictive value in patients with acute PE, proposing a new cut-off value of hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L. Validation through large-scale studies is essential to offer clinically useful guidance for managing patient population.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.