This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background: Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) are common pro‑ phylactic strategies for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT). Interleukin (IL)-6 is a surrogate marker for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute GVHD.Method The clinical outcomes and complications of haplo-HSCT with PTCy plus ATG versus PTCy monotherapy were compared according to serum IL-6 levels at Chungnam National University Hospital (Daejeon, South Korea) from Jan‑ uary 2019 to February 2023. Results: Forty patients who underwent haplo-HSCT were analyzed. A significant difference in IL-6 levels was observed between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (7.47 ± 10.55 vs. 117.65 ± 127.67; p = 0.003). More patients in the PTCy plus ATG group had a CRS grade of 0 than in the PTCy alone group (p < 0.001). Serum IL-6 levels were associated with grades II–IV acute GVHD (r = 0.547, p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence (CI) of grades II–IV acute GVHD was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group (67.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001). No significant difference in the CI for chronic GVHD was detected between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (72.1% vs. 82.0%; p = 0.730). The CI of 1-year non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group (42.2% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.022). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the PTCy plus ATG group (75.9% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.011). The 1-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival rate was 29.4% in the PTCy alone group and 54.0% in the PTCy plus ATG group (p = 0.038). Conclusion Serum IL-6 levels were higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group. The addition of ATG before stem cell infusion affected IL-6 levels and reduced the incidences of CRS and grade II–IV acute GVHD in haplo-HSCT patients. This study suggests that PTCy plus ATG as GVHD prophylaxis in haplo-HSCT is beneficial in terms of clinical outcomes and complications of HSCT.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background: Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) are common pro‑ phylactic strategies for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT). Interleukin (IL)-6 is a surrogate marker for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute GVHD.Method The clinical outcomes and complications of haplo-HSCT with PTCy plus ATG versus PTCy monotherapy were compared according to serum IL-6 levels at Chungnam National University Hospital (Daejeon, South Korea) from Jan‑ uary 2019 to February 2023. Results: Forty patients who underwent haplo-HSCT were analyzed. A significant difference in IL-6 levels was observed between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (7.47 ± 10.55 vs. 117.65 ± 127.67; p = 0.003). More patients in the PTCy plus ATG group had a CRS grade of 0 than in the PTCy alone group (p < 0.001). Serum IL-6 levels were associated with grades II–IV acute GVHD (r = 0.547, p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence (CI) of grades II–IV acute GVHD was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group (67.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001). No significant difference in the CI for chronic GVHD was detected between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (72.1% vs. 82.0%; p = 0.730). The CI of 1-year non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group (42.2% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.022). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the PTCy plus ATG group (75.9% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.011). The 1-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival rate was 29.4% in the PTCy alone group and 54.0% in the PTCy plus ATG group (p = 0.038). Conclusion Serum IL-6 levels were higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group. The addition of ATG before stem cell infusion affected IL-6 levels and reduced the incidences of CRS and grade II–IV acute GVHD in haplo-HSCT patients. This study suggests that PTCy plus ATG as GVHD prophylaxis in haplo-HSCT is beneficial in terms of clinical outcomes and complications of HSCT.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.