Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

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.

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.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

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.

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.

Purpose: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is recommended for muscle-invasive or lymph node-positive upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). However, disease recurrences are frequently observed in pT1 disease, and AC may increase the risk of overtreatment in pT2 UTUC patients. This study aimed to validate a risk-adapted scoring model for selecting UTUC patients with ≤pT2 disease who would benefit from AC. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 443 ≤pT2 UTUC patients who underwent RNU. A risk-adapted scoring model was applied, categorizing patients into low- or high-risk groups. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were analyzed according to risk group. Results: Overall, 355 patients (80.1%) and 88 patients (19.9%) were categorized into the low- and high-risk groups, respectively, with the latter having higher pathological stages, concurrent carcinoma in situ, and synchronous bladder tumors. Disease recurrence occurred in 45 patients (10.2%), among whom 19 (5.4%) and 26 (29.5%) belonged to the low- and high-risk groups, respectively (p<0.001). High-risk patients had significantly shorter RFS (64.3% vs. 93.6% at 60 months; hazard ratio [HR] 13.66; p<0.001) and worse CSS (80.7% vs. 91.5% at 60 months; HR 4.25; p=0.002). Multivariate analysis confirmed that pT2 stage and the high-risk group were independent predictors of recurrence and cancer-specific death (p<0.001). Decision curve analysis for RFS showed larger net benefits with our model than with the T stage model. Conclusions The risk-adapted scoring model effectively predicts recurrence and identifies optimal candidates for AC post RNU in non-metastatic UTUC.