Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: Developmentally regulated GTP-binding protein 2 (DRG2) regulates microtubule dynamics and G2/M arrest during docetaxel treatment. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) acts as an important repair system for DNA damage caused by docetaxel treatment. This study investigated whether DRG2 expression affects response to PARP inhibitors (olaparib) using prostate cancer cell lines PC3, DU145, LNCaP-FGC, and LNCaP-LN3. Materials and Methods: The cell viability and DRG2 expression levels were assessed using colorimetric-based cell viability assay and western blot. Cells were transfected with DRG2 siRNA, and pcDNA6/V5-DRG2 was used to overexpress DRG2. Flow cytometry was applied for cell cycle assay and apoptosis analysis using the Annexing V cell death assay. Results: The expression of DRG2 was highest in LNCaP-LN3 and lowest in DU145 cells. Expressions of p53 in PC3, DU145, and the two LNCaP cell lines were null-type, high-expression, and medium-expression, respectively. In PC3 (DRG2 high, p53 null) cells, docetaxel increased G2/M arrest without apoptosis; however, subsequent treatment with olaparib promoted apoptosis. In DU145 and LNCaP-FGC (DRG2 low), docetaxel increased sub-G1 but not G2/M arrest and induced apoptosis, whereas olaparib had no additional effect. In LNCaP-LN3 (DRG2 high, p53 wild-type), docetaxel increased sub-G1 and G2/M arrest, furthermore olaparib enhanced cell death. Docetaxel and olaparib combination treatment had a slight effect on DRG2 knockdown PC3, but increased apoptosis in DRG2-overexpressed DU145 cells. Conclusions DRG2 and p53 expressions play an important role in prostate cancer cell lines treated with docetaxel, and DRG2 levels can predict the response to PARP inhibitors.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

Purpose: The technique for transanal resection of rectal tumors has evolved from conventional methods to minimally invasive approaches. However, the research comparing long-term results between these approaches is limited. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, a total of 133 patients who underwent transanal excision were analyzed. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to surgical approach: conventional transanal approach (CTA) and minimally invasive transanal approach (MTA). Medical records were analyzed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences observed in patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics, except the MTA group exhibited a statistically longer distance from the anal verge. Although statistical significance was not reached, the MTA group demonstrated a 100% margin-negative rate in contrast to the CTA group, which had worse outcomes for both margin status and fragmentation. Recurrence was observed only in the CTA group containing pT1 rectal cancer and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor, with negative margins and no fragmentation. Conclusion The minimally invasive approach did not demonstrate statistical superiority but showed technical feasibility through the absence of margin-positive cases and the use of the clip handle method. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and assess broader applicability.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

Purpose: The regions where patients diagnosed with prostate cancer by biopsy receive prostatectomy are divided into national hub and regional hubs, and to confirm the change in the role of regional hubs compared to national hub. Materials and Methods: Data from July 2013 to June 2017 encompassing 218,155 patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with prostate cancer were analyzed using the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. The degree of patient outflow was assessed by dividing the regional diagnosis-to-surgery ratio with the national ratio for each year. Based on this ratio, national and regional hubs were determined. Results: Seoul consistently maintained a patient influx with a ratio above 1.6. Busan and Gyeonggi consistently exceeded 0.9, while Ulsan and Daegu steadily increased, exceeding 1.0 between 2015 and 2016. Jeonnam province also consistently maintained the ratio above 0.7. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon remained below 0.5, indicative of substantial patient outflows, whereas Gwangju and Gyeongbuk had the highest patient outflows with ratios below 0.15. Therefore, Seoul was designated as a national hub, whereas Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam were classified as regional hubs. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon were the dominant outflow areas, while Gwangju and Gyeongbuk were the highest outflow areas. Conclusions Seoul, as the national hub for prostate cancer surgery, operated on 1.76 times more patients than any other region during 2013–2017. Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam functioned as regional hubs, but approximately 10%–20% of patients sought treatment at national hubs.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.