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.

Parathyroid glands are small endocrine glands that regulate calcium metabolism by producing parathyroid hormone (PTH). These are located at the back of the thyroid gland. Typically, four glands comprise the parathyroid glands, although their numbers may vary among individuals.Parathyroid diseases are related to parathyroid gland dysfunction and can be caused by problems with the parathyroid gland itself or abnormal serum calcium levels arising from renal disease. In recent years, as comprehensive health checkups have become more common, abnormal serum calcium levels are often found incidentally in blood tests, after which several additional tests, including a PTH test, ultrasonography (US), technetium-99m sestamibi parathyroid scan, single-photon-emission CT (SPECT)/CT, four-dimensional CT (4D-CT), and PET/CT, are performed for further evaluation. However, the parathyroid gland remains an organ less familiar to radiologists. Therefore, the normal anatomy, pathophysiology, imaging, and clinical findings of the parathyroid gland and its associated diseases are discussed here.

This study aimed to explore the participation experiences of patients with type 2 diabetes in an Automated Personalized Self-Care program, assess the changes in self-care behavior and glycemic control, and evaluate the stages of change and readiness to change using the transtheoretical model (TTM). Methods: We examined 16 patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in a diabetes self-care program using a mobile application. Purposive sampling continued until data saturation. Using a mixed method study, we analyzed the participants’ characteristics, self-care behavior, stage of change, and readiness to change quantitatively and analyzed the qualitative data using Elo and Kyngas’s content analysis method. Results: The compliance group (CG) showed improved self-care behavior and glycemic control. In the CG, the proportion of participants in the action stage was higher in the exercise and diet domains and lower in the blood glucose testing and medication domains than in the non-compliance group (NCG). Readiness to change, motivation for health behaviors, and social motivation were higher in the CG, whereas personal motivation was higher in the NCG. In this qualitative study, three categories and 11 subcategories were identified. The findings suggest the CG regarded their experience in the program more frequently as positive, whereas the NCG perceived greater barriers to using the mobile application in the program. Conclusion: Based on the differences identified between the CG and NCG, TTM-based strategies are needed to facilitate the progression of NCG to the action stage.

Parathyroid glands are small endocrine glands that regulate calcium metabolism by producing parathyroid hormone (PTH). These are located at the back of the thyroid gland. Typically, four glands comprise the parathyroid glands, although their numbers may vary among individuals.Parathyroid diseases are related to parathyroid gland dysfunction and can be caused by problems with the parathyroid gland itself or abnormal serum calcium levels arising from renal disease. In recent years, as comprehensive health checkups have become more common, abnormal serum calcium levels are often found incidentally in blood tests, after which several additional tests, including a PTH test, ultrasonography (US), technetium-99m sestamibi parathyroid scan, single-photon-emission CT (SPECT)/CT, four-dimensional CT (4D-CT), and PET/CT, are performed for further evaluation. However, the parathyroid gland remains an organ less familiar to radiologists. Therefore, the normal anatomy, pathophysiology, imaging, and clinical findings of the parathyroid gland and its associated diseases are discussed here.

Parathyroid glands are small endocrine glands that regulate calcium metabolism by producing parathyroid hormone (PTH). These are located at the back of the thyroid gland. Typically, four glands comprise the parathyroid glands, although their numbers may vary among individuals.Parathyroid diseases are related to parathyroid gland dysfunction and can be caused by problems with the parathyroid gland itself or abnormal serum calcium levels arising from renal disease. In recent years, as comprehensive health checkups have become more common, abnormal serum calcium levels are often found incidentally in blood tests, after which several additional tests, including a PTH test, ultrasonography (US), technetium-99m sestamibi parathyroid scan, single-photon-emission CT (SPECT)/CT, four-dimensional CT (4D-CT), and PET/CT, are performed for further evaluation. However, the parathyroid gland remains an organ less familiar to radiologists. Therefore, the normal anatomy, pathophysiology, imaging, and clinical findings of the parathyroid gland and its associated diseases are discussed here.

Purpose: Providing continuous self-care support to the growing diabetes population is challenging. Strategies are needed to enhance engagement in self-care, utilizing innovative technologies for personalized feedback. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of the Automated Personalized Self-Care program among type 2 diabetes patients and evaluate its preliminary effectiveness. Methods: A parallel randomized pilot trial with qualitative interviews occurred from May 3, 2022, to September 27, 2022. Participants aged 40e69 years with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ! 7.0% were recruited. The three-month program involved automated personalized goal setting, education, monitoring, and feedback. Feasibility was measured by participants' engagement and intervention usability. Preliminary effectiveness was examined through self-care self-efficacy, self-care behaviors, and health outcomes. Qualitative interviews were conducted with the intervention group. Results: A total of 404 patients were screened. Out of the 61 eligible patients, 32 were enrolled, resulting in a recruitment rate of 52.5%. Retention rates at three months were 84.2% and 84.6% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Among the intervention group, 81.3% satisfied adherence criteria.Mobile application's usability scored 66.25, and participants' satisfaction was 8.06. Intention-to-treat analysis showed improvements in self-measured blood glucose testing, grain intake, and HbA1c in the intervention group. Qualitative content analysis identified nine themes. Conclusion Feasibility of the program was verified. A larger randomized controlled trial is needed to determine its effectiveness in self-care self-efficacy, self-care behaviors, and health outcomes among type 2 diabetes patients. This study offers insights for optimizing future trials assessing clinical effectiveness.