Objective: High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is a leading cause of cervical cancer, of which human papillomavirus (HPV)-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of cases.Since HPV infection is common, it is important to focus on the HPV genotypes that pose the highest risk for effective cervical cancer screening. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening. Methods: A total of 86,022 women aged 25 years or older was analyzed in this study.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HPV genotyping and cytology were analyzed. In addition, we subdivided participants into two groups according to cytology results, negative for intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), and analyzed absolute risk (AR) and relative risk (RR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse according to HPV genotype. Results: The AR of CIN 3 or worse was 77.0 times higher in HR-HPV-positive compared to HR-HPV-negative. Compared to 12 other HR-HPV-positive, the AR of CIN 3 or worse was 4.2 times higher in HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 positive. This finding was more evident in women with NILM than in women with ASC-US. The RR of CIN 3 or worse was 7.0 in women with NILM and 4.5 in women with ASC-US. Conclusion Regardless of the cytology results, the risk of CIN 3 or worse was higher in HPV-16/HPV-18 than in other HR-HPV. HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping is recommended to screen women with a high risk of cervical cancer.

Objective: High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is a leading cause of cervical cancer, of which human papillomavirus (HPV)-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of cases.Since HPV infection is common, it is important to focus on the HPV genotypes that pose the highest risk for effective cervical cancer screening. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening. Methods: A total of 86,022 women aged 25 years or older was analyzed in this study.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HPV genotyping and cytology were analyzed. In addition, we subdivided participants into two groups according to cytology results, negative for intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), and analyzed absolute risk (AR) and relative risk (RR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse according to HPV genotype. Results: The AR of CIN 3 or worse was 77.0 times higher in HR-HPV-positive compared to HR-HPV-negative. Compared to 12 other HR-HPV-positive, the AR of CIN 3 or worse was 4.2 times higher in HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 positive. This finding was more evident in women with NILM than in women with ASC-US. The RR of CIN 3 or worse was 7.0 in women with NILM and 4.5 in women with ASC-US. Conclusion Regardless of the cytology results, the risk of CIN 3 or worse was higher in HPV-16/HPV-18 than in other HR-HPV. HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping is recommended to screen women with a high risk of cervical cancer.

Objective: High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is a leading cause of cervical cancer, of which human papillomavirus (HPV)-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of cases.Since HPV infection is common, it is important to focus on the HPV genotypes that pose the highest risk for effective cervical cancer screening. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening. Methods: A total of 86,022 women aged 25 years or older was analyzed in this study.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HPV genotyping and cytology were analyzed. In addition, we subdivided participants into two groups according to cytology results, negative for intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), and analyzed absolute risk (AR) and relative risk (RR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse according to HPV genotype. Results: The AR of CIN 3 or worse was 77.0 times higher in HR-HPV-positive compared to HR-HPV-negative. Compared to 12 other HR-HPV-positive, the AR of CIN 3 or worse was 4.2 times higher in HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 positive. This finding was more evident in women with NILM than in women with ASC-US. The RR of CIN 3 or worse was 7.0 in women with NILM and 4.5 in women with ASC-US. Conclusion Regardless of the cytology results, the risk of CIN 3 or worse was higher in HPV-16/HPV-18 than in other HR-HPV. HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping is recommended to screen women with a high risk of cervical cancer.

Background: For effective management of blood components, periodic updates of the maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) using recent data are crucial. This study aimed to establish an updated MSBOS and red blood cell (RBC) mean transfusion units per patient according to the adjacent diagnosis related groups (ADRG) classification system. Methods: This retrospective study was based on an audit of the medical records of inpatients at a tertiary hospital between January and December 2017. We investigated transfusion-related data to establish the MSBOS and determine the RBC mean transfusion units per patient according to the ADRG and compared these updated values with previous data. Results: During the investigated period, a total of 5,607 RBC units were transfused in 17,382 patients. The revised MSBOS was similar to the previous MSBOS in most surgeries. Among the 130 ADRG codes analyzed, 34 codes showed an increase, while 96 codes showed a decrease in RBC mean transfusion units per patient, compared to data from 2007. Overall, the RBC mean transfusion units per patient in 2017 was 0.89 units less compared to that in 2007 after adjusting for age (95% CI: 0.853–0.912). Conclusions The revised MSBOS was similar to that of the previous versions. However, there were differences in the number of RBC transfusion units used in some surgeries and disease treatments compared to those in the past. Considering the changes within the medical environment, this study highlights the importance of periodic evaluation of MSBOS and RBC transfusion usage.

Classification ; Consensus ; Diagnosis ; Hematologic Neoplasms ; Hematology ; Lymphoid Tissue

Background: Multiple Allergo-Sorbent Test (MAST) allows simultaneous detection of specific IgE antibodies using multiple allergens, and it is commonly used for allergy screening. Phadiatop assay (Phadia AB, Sweden), including Phadiatop test and Phadiatop Infant test, is a variant of specific IgE test that covers a mixture of common allergens. We compared the clinical utility of Phadiatop assay with that of the MAST AlloScreen (LG Life Science, Korea). Methods: A total of 218 samples classified by AlloScreen results were collected. Phadiatop test was performed on sera from 61 and 103 aeroallergen-positive and -negative subjects. Phadiatop Infant test was performed on sera from 54 and 103 food and aeroallergen-positive and -negative subjects. When the results of AlloScreen and Phadiatop assay were not identical, we confirmed them using ImmunoCAP (Phadia AB). Results: The concordance rate between AlloScreen and Phadiatop test was 93.2% (κ=0.86, P<0.001). Eleven (6.7%) of 164 specimens showed discrepant results. The results of AlloScreen did not agree with those of ImmunoCAP. The concordance rate between AlloScreen and Phadiatop Infant test was 97.4% (κ=0.945, P <0.001). Four (2.5%) specimens showed negative results in AlloScreen and positive results in Phadiatop Infant test. Three cases were confirmed as positive and one case was not confirmed through ImmunoCAP. Conclusions There was excellent agreement between AlloScreen and Phadiatop assay. Phadiatop assay accurately detected sensitization to common food and aeroallergen mixes. Therefore, Phadiatop assay is recommended as a screening test for allergic diseases.

Background: Multiple Allergo-Sorbent Test (MAST) allows simultaneous detection of specific IgE antibodies using multiple allergens, and it is commonly used for allergy screening. Phadiatop assay (Phadia AB, Sweden), including Phadiatop test and Phadiatop Infant test, is a variant of specific IgE test that covers a mixture of common allergens. We compared the clinical utility of Phadiatop assay with that of the MAST AlloScreen (LG Life Science, Korea). Methods: A total of 218 samples classified by AlloScreen results were collected. Phadiatop test was performed on sera from 61 and 103 aeroallergen-positive and -negative subjects. Phadiatop Infant test was performed on sera from 54 and 103 food and aeroallergen-positive and -negative subjects. When the results of AlloScreen and Phadiatop assay were not identical, we confirmed them using ImmunoCAP (Phadia AB). Results: The concordance rate between AlloScreen and Phadiatop test was 93.2% (κ=0.86, P<0.001). Eleven (6.7%) of 164 specimens showed discrepant results. The results of AlloScreen did not agree with those of ImmunoCAP. The concordance rate between AlloScreen and Phadiatop Infant test was 97.4% (κ=0.945, P <0.001). Four (2.5%) specimens showed negative results in AlloScreen and positive results in Phadiatop Infant test. Three cases were confirmed as positive and one case was not confirmed through ImmunoCAP. Conclusions There was excellent agreement between AlloScreen and Phadiatop assay. Phadiatop assay accurately detected sensitization to common food and aeroallergen mixes. Therefore, Phadiatop assay is recommended as a screening test for allergic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Blood culture is an important method for identifying infectious microorganisms and confirming that a selected antimicrobial treatment is appropriate. In this study, we investigated the annual changes in the frequencies of blood isolates and antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) results. METHODS: We created a large database comprising data on all patient-unique blood cultures obtained from January 2007 through December 2016. Blood specimens were cultured using the BD BACTEC FX system, and species identification and AST were performed using the VITEK 2 system. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, a total of 203,651 blood culture results were collected. Of these, gram-positive cocci, gram-negative rods, and fungi were isolated in 2.15%, 0.55%, and 0.12% of the blood cultures, respectively. Escherichia coli was the most commonly isolated species (22.8%), followed by Staphylococcus epidermidis (16.8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (8.1%), and Staphylococcus aureus (8.0%). Fungal species were isolated in 3.0% of all positive blood cultures. Candida albicans was the most commonly isolated species (1.1%), followed by Candida parapsilosis (0.6%). Methicillin resistance was seen in 55.2% of S. aureus isolates. The frequencies of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) were 13.1% and 10.9%, respectively. The isolation rates of MRSA, VRE, and CRPA showed different patterns each year. CONCLUSIONS: Among the isolates, E. coli was the most common, followed by S. epidermidis and K. pneumoniae. This study represents a long-term analysis of bloodstream infections, and the results can be used to identify trends in the microorganisms isolated and their drug resistance.
Bacteremia ; Candida ; Candida albicans ; Drug Resistance ; Enterococcus ; Escherichia coli ; Fungi ; Gram-Positive Cocci ; Klebsiella pneumoniae ; Korea ; Methicillin Resistance ; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ; Methods ; Pneumonia ; Pseudomonas aeruginosa ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Staphylococcus epidermidis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In multicenter clinical trials, laboratory tests are performed in the laboratory of each center, mostly using different measuring methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate coefficients of variation (CVs) of laboratory results produced by various measuring methods and to determine whether mathematical data adjustment could achieve harmonization between the methods. METHODS: We chose 10 clinical laboratories, including Green Cross Laboratories (GC Labs), the central laboratory, for the measurement of total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), serum triglycerides, creatinine, and glucose. The serum panels made with patient samples referred to GC Labs were sent to the other laboratories. Twenty serum samples for each analyte were prepared, sent frozen, and analyzed by each participating laboratory. RESULTS: All methods used by participating laboratories for the six analytes had traceability by reference materials and methods. When the results from the nine laboratories were compared with those from GC Labs, the mean CVs for total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, and glucose analyzed using the same method were 1.7%, 3.7%, 4.3%, and 1.7%, respectively; and those for triglycerides and creatinine analyzed using two different methods were 4.5% and 4.48%, respectively. After adjusting data using Deming regression, the mean CV were 0.7%, 1.4%, 1.8%, 1.4%, 1.6%, and 0.8% for total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglyceride, creatinine, and glucose, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that more comparable results can be produced by laboratory data harmonization using commutable samples. Therefore, harmonization efforts should be undertaken in multicenter trials for accurate data analysis (CRIS number; KCT0001235).
Cholesterol ; Cholesterol, HDL ; Cholesterol, LDL ; Creatinine ; Glucose ; Humans ; Methods ; Multicenter Studies as Topic ; Research Design* ; Statistics as Topic ; Triglycerides