Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance. Results: The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups. Conclusion Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Background and Objectives: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue–based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. Methods: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. Results: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. Conclusions Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Purpose: Perspectives of radiation oncologists on oligometastatic disease was investigated using multi-layered survey. Materials and Methods: Online survey on the oligometastatic disease was distributed to the board-certified regular members of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. The questionnaire consisted of four domains: five questions on demographics; five on the definition of oligometastatic disease; four on the role of local therapy; and three on the oligometastatic disease classification, respectively. Results: A total of 135 radiation oncologists participated in the survey. The median length of practice after board certification was 22.5 years (range, 1 to 44 years), and the vast majority (94.1%) answered affirmatively to the clinical experience in oligometastatic disease management. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents considered the number of involved organs as an independent factor in defining oligometastasis. Most frequently perceived upper limit on the numerical definition of oligometastasis was 5 (64.2%), followed by 3 (26.0%), respectively. Peritoneal and brain metastasis were nominated as the sites to be excluded from oligometastastic disease by 56.3% and 12.6% of the participants, respectively. Vast majority (82.1%) agreed on the role of local treatment in the management of oligometastatic disease. Majority (72%) of the participants acknowledged the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)–European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) classification of oligometastatic disease, however, only 43.3% answered that they applied this classification in their clinical practice. Underlying reasons against the clinical use were ‘too complicated’ (66.0%), followed by ‘insufficient supporting evidence’ (30.0%), respectively. Conclusion While most radiation oncologists supported the role of local therapy in oligometastatic disease, there were several inconsistencies in defining and categorizing oligometastatic disease. Continued education and training on oligometastatic disease would be also required to build consensus among participating caregivers.