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: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

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: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.