Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background and Objectives: Concerns remain that early aspirin cessation may be associated with potential harm in subsets at high risk of ischemic events. This study aimed to assess the effects of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs.prolonged DAPT (12-month or longer) based on the ischemic risk stratification, the CHADSP2A2RC, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: This was a sub-study of the SMART-CHOICE trial. The effect of the randomized antiplatelet strategies was assessed across 3 CHADS-P2A2RC risk score categories. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Results: Up to 3 years, the high CHADS-P2A2RC risk score group had the highest incidence of MACCE (105 [12.1%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.927; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.358–6.309; p=0.006) followed by moderate-risk (40 [1.4%], adjusted HR, 1.786; 95% CI, 0.868–3.674; p=0.115) and low-risk (9 [0.5%], reference). In secondary analyses, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding without increasing the risk of MACCE as compared with prolonged DAPT across the 3 CHADS-P2A2RC risk strata without significant interaction term (interaction p for MACCE=0.705 and interaction p for BARC types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding=0.055). Conclusions The CHADS-P2A2RC risk score is valuable in discriminating high-ischemicrisk patients. Even in such patients with a high risk of ischemic events, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of bleeding without increased risk of ischemic events compared with prolonged DAPT.

Purpose: The incidence and prognostic implications of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are controversial, especially for Korean patients. Furthermore, the pattern of antithrombotic therapy for these patients is unknown. The present study sought to identify the impact of AF on Korean patients undergoing TAVI and demonstrate the status of antithrombotic therapy for these patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 660 patients who underwent TAVI for severe AS were recruited from the nationwide K-TAVI registry in Korea. The enrolled patients were stratified into sinus rhythm (SR) and AF groups. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1-year. Results: AF was recorded in 135 patients [pre-existing AF 108 (16.4%) and new-onset AF 27 (4.1%)]. The rate of all-cause death at 1 year was significantly higher in patients with AF than in those with SR [16.2% vs. 6.4%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 2.207, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.182–4.120, p=0.013], regardless of the onset timing of AF. The rate of new pacemaker insertion at 1 year was also significantly higher in patients with AF than in those with SR (14.0% vs. 5.5%, adjusted HR: 3.137, 95%CI: 1.621–6.071, p=0.001).Among AF patients, substantial number of patients received the combination of multiple antithrombotic agents (77.8%), and the most common combination was that of aspirin and clopidogrel (38.1%). Conclusion AF was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality and new pacemaker insertion in Korean patients undergoing TAVI.

Purpose: Long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) has been widely recommended in a majority of rectal cancer patients. Recently, encouraging data on short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) for rectal cancer has emerged. In this study, we aimed to compare these two methods in terms of short-term outcomes and cost analysis under the Korean medical insurance system. Materials and Methods: Sixty-two patients with high-risk rectal cancer, who underwent either SCRT or LCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME), were classified into two groups. Twenty-seven patients received 5 Gy×5 with two cycles of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks) followed by TME (SCRT group). Thirty-five patients received capecitabine-based LCRT followed by TME (LCRT group). Short-term outcomes and cost estimation were assessed between the two groups. Results: Pathological complete response was achieved in 18.5% and 5.7% of patients in the SCRT and LCRT groups, respectively (p=0.223). The 2-year recurrence-free survival rate did not show significant difference between the two groups (SCRT vs. LCRT:91.9% vs. 76.2%, p=0.394). The average total cost per patient for SCRT was 18% lower for inpatient treatment (SCRT vs. LCRT: $18787 vs. $22203, p<0.001) and 40% lower for outpatient treatment (SCRT vs. LCRT: $11955 vs. $19641, p<0.001) compared to LCRT. SCRT was shown to be the dominant treatment option with fewer recurrences and fewer complications at a lower cost. Conclusion SCRT was well-tolerated and achieved favorable short-term outcomes. In addition, SCRT showed significant reduction in the total cost of care and distinguished cost-effectiveness compared to LCRT.

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.

Recent several reports have demonstrated that periodontitis is prevalent and adversely affects the survival in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage kidney disease. However, its impact on transplant outcomes remains uncertain. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 136 and 167 patients, respectively, who underwent living donor kidney transplantation (KT) at Seoul National University Hospital from July 2012 to August 2016 and Korea University Hospital from April 2008 to October 2018. We divided patients into three groups according to stages of periodontitis based on a new classification system. Results: Patients with severe periodontitis were older, had a higher prevalence of diabetes, a higher body mass index and C-reactive protein level, a lower cardiac output, and were more likely to be smokers, indicating its association with chronic systemic inflammation. After KT, stage IV periodontitis was independently associated with a lower incidence of acute T cell-mediated rejection, suggesting the possible effect of periodontitis on immune function. However, 1-year and 3-year estimated glomerular filtration rates were not different. Among the KT recipients followed up more than 3 years, new-onset cardiovascular disease occurred in nine patients, and coronary artery disease occurred more frequently in patients with stage IV periodontitis. However, diabetes was the independent predictor of new-onset coronary artery disease in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: Our findings showed that periodontitis might be an important player in determining posttransplant outcomes in recipients. Further interventional trials to test whether treating periodontitis could modify transplant outcome are needed.