Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: We conducted a nationwide, multicenter, prospective registry study for newly diagnosed patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) to better define the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in these patients. Materials and Methods: Patients with PTCL receiving chemotherapy with curative intent were registered and prospectively monitored. All patients were pathologically diagnosed with PTCL. Results: A total of 191 patients with PTCL were enrolled in this prospective registry study. PTCL, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) was the most common pathologic subtype (n=80, 41.9%), followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) (n=60, 31.4%). With a median follow-up duration of 3.9 years, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 39.5% and 60.4%, respectively. The role of upfront ASCT was evaluated in patients who were considered transplant-eligible (n=59). ASCT was performed as an upfront consolidative treatment in 32 (54.2%) of these patients. There were no significant differences in PFS and OS between the ASCT and non-ASCT groups for all patients (n=59) and for patients with PTCL-NOS (n=26). However, in patients with AITL, the ASCT group was associated with significantly better PFS than the non-ASCT group, although there was no significant difference in OS. Conclusion The current study demonstrated that the survival outcomes with the current treatment options remain poor for patients with PTCL-NOS. Upfront ASCT may provide a survival benefit for patients with AITL, but not PTCL-NOS.

Purpose: Renal tumors account for approximately 7% of all childhood cancers. These include Wilms tumor (WT), clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), malignant rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (MRTK), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) and other rare tumors. We investigated the epidemiology of pediatric renal tumors in Korea. Materials and Methods: From January 2001 to December 2015, data of pediatric patients (0–18 years) newly-diagnosed with renal tumors at 26 hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among 439 patients (male, 240), the most common tumor was WT (n=342, 77.9%), followed by RCC (n=36, 8.2%), CCSK (n=24, 5.5%), MRTK (n=16, 3.6%), CMN (n=12, 2.7%), and others (n=9, 2.1%). Median age at diagnosis was 27.1 months (range 0-225.5) and median follow-up duration was 88.5 months (range 0-211.6). Overall, 32 patients died, of whom 17, 11, 1, and 3 died of relapse, progressive disease, second malignant neoplasm, and treatment-related mortality. Five-year overall survival and event free survival were 97.2% and 84.8% in WT, 90.6% and 82.1% in RCC, 81.1% and 63.6% in CCSK, 60.3% and 56.2% in MRTK, and 100% and 91.7% in CMN, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion The pediatric renal tumor types in Korea are similar to those previously reported in other countries. WT accounted for a large proportion and survival was excellent. Non-Wilms renal tumors included a variety of tumors and showed inferior outcome, especially MRTK. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the treatment and analyze the genetic characteristics of pediatric renal tumors in Korea.

Background: Light-emitting diode (LED)-based photobiomodulation is used as an inducer of cell regeneration. Although numerous in vitro and in vivo orthopedic studies have been conducted, the ideal LED wavelength range for tendon healing has not yet been determined. This study, thus, focused on the effects of LED of a 630 nm wavelength on the cell viability, proliferation, and migration of human biceps tendon fibroblast cells. Methods: Human tendon fibroblast cell culture was performed using the biceps tendon of patients who had undergone biceps tenodesis. Human biceps tendon fibroblasts from two patients (male, aged 42 and 69 years) were isolated and cultured. The cell type was confirmed by a morphological analysis and using tendon and fibroblast specific markers. They were then split into three groups, with each receiving a different irradiation treatment: no LED treatment (control), 630 nm LED, and 630 nm + 880 nm LED for 20 minutes each. After the LED treatment, cell viability, proliferation, and migration assays were performed, and the results were compared between the groups. Results: Twenty-four hours after LED treatment, cell viability and proliferation were significantly increased in the 630 nm LED and 630 nm + 880 nm LED treatment groups compared to that in the control group (p < 0.05). Under the same conditions, compared with the control group, the 630 nm LED alone treatment group showed a 3.06 ± 0.21 times higher cell migration rate (p < 0.05), and the 630 nm + 880 nm LED combination treatment group showed a 2.88 ± 0.20 times higher cell migration rate (p < 0.05) in threedimensional migration assay. Conclusions In human tendon fibroblast cells, 20 minutes of LED treatment at 630 nm and 630 nm + 880 nm exhibited significant effects on cell proliferation and migration. Our findings suggest the potential of LED therapy as an adjuvant treatment for tendon healing, and hence, further research is warranted to standardize the various parameters to further develop and establish this as a reliable treatment regimen.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Background: Data on the status of long-term follow-up (LTFU) care for childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) in Korea is lacking. This study was conducted to evaluate the current status of LTFU care for CCSs and relevant physicians’ perspectives. Methods: A nationwide online survey of pediatric hematologists/oncologists in the Republic of Korea was undertaken. Results: Overall, 47 of the 74 board-certified Korean pediatric hematologists/oncologists currently providing pediatric hematology/oncology care participated in the survey (response rate = 63.5%). Forty-five of the 47 respondents provided LTFU care for CCSs five years after the completion of primary cancer treatment. However, some of the 45 respondents provided LTFU care only for CCS with late complications or CCSs who requested LTFU care. Twenty of the 45 respondents oversaw LTFU care for adult CCSs, although pediatric hematologists/ oncologists experienced more difficulties managing adult CCSs. Many pediatric hematologists/oncologists did not perform the necessary screening test, although CCSs had risk factors for late complications, mostly because of insurance coverage issues and the lack of Korean LTFU guidelines. Regarding a desirable LTFU care system for CCSs in Korea, 27 of the 46 respondents (58.7%) answered that it is desirable to establish a multidisciplinary CCSs care system in which pediatric hematologists/oncologists and adult physicians cooperate. Conclusion The LTFU care system for CCS is underdeveloped in the Republic of Korea. It is urgent to establish an LTFU care system to meet the growing needs of Korean CCSs, which should include Korean CCSs care guidelines, provider education plans, the establishment of multidisciplinary care systems, and a supportive national healthcare policy.