Background/Aims: To determine the effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus reduced-intensity therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL), this retrospective study compared treatment outcomes and induction mortality according to backbone regimen intensity. Methods: The data of 132 patients diagnosed with Ph-positive ALL were retrospectively collected from five centers. Patients received imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy (modified VPD, KALLA1407, or hyper-CVAD) or reduced-intensity chemotherapy (EWALL) for curative purposes. This study analyzed 117 patients, of which 35,22,46, and 14 received modified VPD, KALLA1407, hyper-CVAD, and EWALL, respectively. All patients used imatinib as a TKI. Results: The median age of the patients who received reduced-intensity chemotherapy was 64.4 years, while that of the patients with intensive regimens was 47.5 years. There was no induction death in the reduced-intensity group, while nine patients died in the intensive therapy group. Major molecular response achievement tended to be higher in the intensive chemotherapy group than in the reduced-intensity group. More patients in the intensive chemotherapy group received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups in terms of relapse-free survival and overall survival rates. Conclusions When imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy was used as a frontline treatment, there was no inferiority in obtaining complete remission compared to imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy or significant difference in long-term survival. Since imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy has limitations in obtaining a deep molecular response, proceeding to allo-SCT should be considered.

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.

Purpose: The immunological response and adverse effects of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) in patients receiving coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of these vaccines on AAV disease activity. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 52 patients with AAV who had received at least second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and evaluated their immunogenicity by measuring the anti-spike (S) antibody (Ab) titer levels using the Roche Elecsys® immunoassay. Responses to the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) tool and 36-Item Short Form Survey before and after vaccination were obtained to assess AAV disease activity. Vaccine reactivity was measured using a standardized questionnaire. Results: We enrolled 52 patients with AAV. No differences were found between those who received second and third doses of vaccination in terms of AAV type, disease activity, vaccine type, or the use of immunosuppressive agents, including steroids. The median anti-S Ab titer was 3967.0 after third doses compared to 419.0 after second doses (p=0.001). Except for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), when immunosuppressants were administered in conjunction with steroids, the Ab titer was higher after the third vaccination than that after the second dose. The BVAS remained unchanged before and after second and third doses. No life-threatening adverse events were reported. Conclusion Although COVID-19 vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies in patients taking MMF, the vaccine did not exacerbate disease activity or cause severe side effects. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines should be considered in patients with AAV.

The anticancer drugs have evolved significantly, spanning molecular targeted therapeutics (MTTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Complications associated with these drugs vary widely based on their mechanisms of action. MTTs that target angiogenesis can often lead to complications related to ischemia or endothelial damage across various organs, whereas non-anti-angiogenic MTTs present unique complications derived from their specific pharmacological actions. ICIs are predominantly associated with immunerelated adverse events, such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, thyroid disorders, hypophysitis, and sarcoid-like reactions. CAR-T therapy causes unique and severe complications including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. ADCs tend to cause complications associated with cytotoxic payloads. A comprehensive understanding of these drug-specific toxicities, particularly using medical imaging, is essential for providing optimal patient care. Based on this knowledge, radiologists can play a pivotal role in multidisciplinary teams. Therefore, radiologists must stay up-to-date on the imaging characteristics of these complications and the mechanisms underlying novel anticancer drugs.

The anticancer drugs have evolved significantly, spanning molecular targeted therapeutics (MTTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Complications associated with these drugs vary widely based on their mechanisms of action. MTTs that target angiogenesis can often lead to complications related to ischemia or endothelial damage across various organs, whereas non-anti-angiogenic MTTs present unique complications derived from their specific pharmacological actions. ICIs are predominantly associated with immunerelated adverse events, such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, thyroid disorders, hypophysitis, and sarcoid-like reactions. CAR-T therapy causes unique and severe complications including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. ADCs tend to cause complications associated with cytotoxic payloads. A comprehensive understanding of these drug-specific toxicities, particularly using medical imaging, is essential for providing optimal patient care. Based on this knowledge, radiologists can play a pivotal role in multidisciplinary teams. Therefore, radiologists must stay up-to-date on the imaging characteristics of these complications and the mechanisms underlying novel anticancer drugs.

Background/Aims: To determine the effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus reduced-intensity therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL), this retrospective study compared treatment outcomes and induction mortality according to backbone regimen intensity. Methods: The data of 132 patients diagnosed with Ph-positive ALL were retrospectively collected from five centers. Patients received imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy (modified VPD, KALLA1407, or hyper-CVAD) or reduced-intensity chemotherapy (EWALL) for curative purposes. This study analyzed 117 patients, of which 35,22,46, and 14 received modified VPD, KALLA1407, hyper-CVAD, and EWALL, respectively. All patients used imatinib as a TKI. Results: The median age of the patients who received reduced-intensity chemotherapy was 64.4 years, while that of the patients with intensive regimens was 47.5 years. There was no induction death in the reduced-intensity group, while nine patients died in the intensive therapy group. Major molecular response achievement tended to be higher in the intensive chemotherapy group than in the reduced-intensity group. More patients in the intensive chemotherapy group received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups in terms of relapse-free survival and overall survival rates. Conclusions When imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy was used as a frontline treatment, there was no inferiority in obtaining complete remission compared to imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy or significant difference in long-term survival. Since imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy has limitations in obtaining a deep molecular response, proceeding to allo-SCT should be considered.

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.

Purpose: The immunological response and adverse effects of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) in patients receiving coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of these vaccines on AAV disease activity. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 52 patients with AAV who had received at least second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and evaluated their immunogenicity by measuring the anti-spike (S) antibody (Ab) titer levels using the Roche Elecsys® immunoassay. Responses to the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) tool and 36-Item Short Form Survey before and after vaccination were obtained to assess AAV disease activity. Vaccine reactivity was measured using a standardized questionnaire. Results: We enrolled 52 patients with AAV. No differences were found between those who received second and third doses of vaccination in terms of AAV type, disease activity, vaccine type, or the use of immunosuppressive agents, including steroids. The median anti-S Ab titer was 3967.0 after third doses compared to 419.0 after second doses (p=0.001). Except for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), when immunosuppressants were administered in conjunction with steroids, the Ab titer was higher after the third vaccination than that after the second dose. The BVAS remained unchanged before and after second and third doses. No life-threatening adverse events were reported. Conclusion Although COVID-19 vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies in patients taking MMF, the vaccine did not exacerbate disease activity or cause severe side effects. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines should be considered in patients with AAV.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.