Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Background: The increasing rate of excess body weight (EBW) in the global population has led to growing health concerns, including cancer-related EBW. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer incidence and deaths linked to EBW in Korean individuals from 2015 to 2030 and to compare its value with various body mass index cutoffs. Methods: Levin’s formula was used to calculate the PAF; the prevalence rates were computed using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, while the relative risks of specific cancers related to EBW were estimated based on the results of Korean cohort studies. To account for the 15-year latency period when estimating the PAF in 2020, the prevalence rates from 2015 and attributable cases or deaths from 2020 were used. Results: The PAF attributed to EBW was similar for both cancer incidence and deaths using either the World Health Organization (WHO) Asian-Pacific region standard or a modified Asian standard, with the WHO standard yielding the lowest values. In the Korean population, the PAFs of EBW for cancer incidence were 2.96% in men and 3.61% in women, while those for cancer deaths were 0.67% in men and 3.06% in women in 2020. Additionally, PAFs showed a gradual increase in both sexes until 2030. Conclusion The EBW continues to have a significant impact on cancer incidence and deaths in Korea. Effective prevention strategies targeting the reduction of this modifiable risk factor can substantially decrease the cancer burden.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.