Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data. Materials and Methods: A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed. Results: Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS. Conclusion BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data. Materials and Methods: A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed. Results: Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS. Conclusion BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data. Materials and Methods: A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed. Results: Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS. Conclusion BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Background/Aims: Narrow band imaging provides an accurate diagnosis of colonic polyps.However, these diagnostic modalities are not used as standard endoscopic tools in most institutions. This study aims to investigate whether the chicken skin mucosa (CSM) surrounding the colon polyp yields additional information about colorectal polyps, including histological differentiation of neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps, under conventional white light colonoscopy. Methods: This study prospectively observed 173 patients who underwent endoscopic polypectomy and reviewed the clinical data and pathologic reports of 313 polyps from a university hospital. Two endoscopists each performed colonoscopy and polypectomy and assessed the CSM. The association between CSM surrounding colorectal polyps and histology was analyzed. Results: The majority (91.3%) of CSM-positive polyps were neoplastic (sensitivity, 37.90%;specificity, 86.15%; p<0.001). In logistic regression, the neoplastic polyps were associated with positive CSM (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 9.25; p=0.007), protruded polyps (adjusted OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 1.65 to 17.23; p=0.008), and neoplastic histology–associated pit pattern (pit III, IV, and V) (adjusted OR, 10.14; 95% CI, 4.85 to 22.12; p=0.000). Furthermore, advanced adenomas were associated with positive CSM (adjusted OR, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.77 to 20.28; p=0.005), protruded polyps (adjusted OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.15 to 9.74; p= 0.026), and ≥10 cm polyp size (adjusted OR, 18.56; 95% CI, 3.89 to 147.01; p=0.001). Conclusions Neoplastic and advanced polyps were associated with CSM-positive polyps.These findings suggest that CSM is a useful marker in differentiating neoplastic polyps and advanced polyps under conventional white colonoscopy.

Clinicians and healthcare decision-makers conduct their clinical practice based on the results of clinical trials. However, some health problems remain unresolved; in such cases, further research is required. To ensure reliable research results, it is important to understand the study design and conduct well-designed clinical trials. Many study designs can be chosen within the two broad categories of observational and interventional. Clinical studies have a variety of designs, including case series, case-control, cross-sectional, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Well-designed clinical studies can clarify important differences between treatment options and provide data on long-term drug efficacy and safety. Interpreting the results of clinical trials can be difficult because weaknesses in research design, data collection methods, analytic methods, and reporting can compromise their value and usefulness. However, although randomized controlled trials are limited owing to ethical and practical issues, they are optimal for investigating the effects of therapy and establishing causality. Here we present an overview of different clinical research designs and review their advantages and limitations.