Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Purpose: Perspectives of radiation oncologists on oligometastatic disease was investigated using multi-layered survey. Materials and Methods: Online survey on the oligometastatic disease was distributed to the board-certified regular members of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. The questionnaire consisted of four domains: five questions on demographics; five on the definition of oligometastatic disease; four on the role of local therapy; and three on the oligometastatic disease classification, respectively. Results: A total of 135 radiation oncologists participated in the survey. The median length of practice after board certification was 22.5 years (range, 1 to 44 years), and the vast majority (94.1%) answered affirmatively to the clinical experience in oligometastatic disease management. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents considered the number of involved organs as an independent factor in defining oligometastasis. Most frequently perceived upper limit on the numerical definition of oligometastasis was 5 (64.2%), followed by 3 (26.0%), respectively. Peritoneal and brain metastasis were nominated as the sites to be excluded from oligometastastic disease by 56.3% and 12.6% of the participants, respectively. Vast majority (82.1%) agreed on the role of local treatment in the management of oligometastatic disease. Majority (72%) of the participants acknowledged the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)–European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) classification of oligometastatic disease, however, only 43.3% answered that they applied this classification in their clinical practice. Underlying reasons against the clinical use were ‘too complicated’ (66.0%), followed by ‘insufficient supporting evidence’ (30.0%), respectively. Conclusion While most radiation oncologists supported the role of local therapy in oligometastatic disease, there were several inconsistencies in defining and categorizing oligometastatic disease. Continued education and training on oligometastatic disease would be also required to build consensus among participating caregivers.

Background: CD14 recognizes lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and presepsin is a fragment of soluble CD14. Still, it remains uncertain whether Gram-negative bacteria induce higher presepsin levels than other microorganisms. To address this question, this study aimed to analyze presepsin levels based on microorganisms isolated in blood cultures. Materials and Methods: This study was a single-center study comprising suspected sepsis patients enrolled from July 2020 to September 2020. A total of 95 patients with a single isolate confirmed in blood culture were analyzed to evaluate if there are any differences in presepsin levels according to microbial isolates. Plasma presepsin level was measured using PATHFAST assay kit and analyzer (LSI Medience Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Results: There were 26 Gram-positive bacteremia, 65 Gram-negative bacteremia, and 3 fungemia patients with median presepsin levels of 869, 1,439, and 11,951 pg/mL, respectively. Besides, one case of algaemia demonstrated a presepsin level of 1,231 pg/mL. Our results showed no statistically significant difference in presepsin levels among patients with Gram-positive bacteremia, Gram-negative bacteremia, and fungemia. Furthermore, presepsin levels did not differ significantly among bloodstream infections caused by bacteria that were isolated from at least three different patients. In particular, Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis were able to induce presepsin levels comparable to those induced by Gram-negative bacteria. Conclusion We demonstrated that there were no significant differences in plasma presepsin levels according to microbial isolates in blood culture. The major cause of the variability in presepsin levels during bloodstream infection might be the immunogenicity of each microorganism rather than the presence of LPS in the microorganism.

Purpose: Despite numerous studies on the optimal treatments for oligometastatic disease (OMD), there is no established interdisciplinary consensus on its diagnosis or classification. This survey-based study aimed to analyze the differential opinions of colorectal surgeons and radiation oncologists regarding the definition and treatment of OMD from the colorectal primary. Materials and Methods: A total of 141 participants were included in this study, consisting of 63 radiation oncologists (44.7%) and 78 colorectal surgeons (55.3%). The survey consisted of 19 questions related to OMD, and the responses were analyzed using the chi-square test to determine statistical differences between the specialties. Results: The radiation oncologists chose “bone” more frequently compared to the colorectal surgeons (19.2% vs. 36.5%, p=0.022), while colorectal surgeons favored “peritoneal seeding” (26.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.009). Regarding the number of metastatic tumors, 48.3% of colorectal surgeons responded that “irrelevant, if all metastatic lesions are amendable to local therapy”, while only 21.8% of radiation oncologist chose same answer. When asked about molecular diagnosis, most surgeons (74.8%) said it was important, but only 35.8% of radiation oncologists agreed. Conclusion This study demonstrates that although radiation oncologists and colorectal surgeons agreed on a majority of aspects such as diagnostic imaging, biomarker, systemic therapy, and optimal timing of OMD, they also had quite different perspectives on several aspects of OMD. Understanding these differences is crucial to achieving multidisciplinary consensus on the definition and optimal management of OMD.

Background: Computer-assisted surgery, including robotic and navigational total knee arthroplasty (TKA), has been proposed as a technique used to improve alignment of implants. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes during a minimum follow-up period of 10 years among robotic, navigational, and conventional TKA. Methods: A total of 855 knees (robotic group, 194; conventional group, 270; and navigational group, 391) were available for physical and radiological examinations over a mean follow-up period of 10 years. The survival rate was analyzed using the KaplanMeier method based on the survival endpoint. The Hospital for Special Surgery score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Society Score, and range of motion were used for clinical evaluation. The hip-knee-ankle (HKA) axis angle, the coronal inclination of femoral and tibial components, and the presence of radiolucent lines were also assessed at the final follow-up. Results: All clinical assessments at the final follow-up revealed improvements in the three groups without any significant difference among the groups (p> 0.05). The cumulative 10-year survival rate was 97.4% in the robotic group, 96.6% in the conventional group, and 98.2% in the navigational group, with no significant difference (p = 0.447). The rates of complication-associated surgery were not significantly different among the groups (p = 0.907). Only the proportion of outliers in the HKA axis angle showed a significant difference (p = 0.001), but other radiological outcomes were not significantly different among the three groups. Conclusions Our study demonstrated satisfactory survival rates for robotic, navigational, and conventional TKAs and similar clinical outcomes during the long-term follow-up. Larger studies with continuous serial data are needed to confirm these findings.

Reducing antibiotics overuse is essential to minimize antibiotics related side effects and to prevent the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Procalcitonin (PCT) guided antibiotics therapy has been reported to be safe in patients with acute respiratory infections and sepsis, improving clinical outcomes as well as reducing the duration of antibiotics use.However, there is still no universal agreement on clinical guidelines in Korea for optimal PCT applications. Through this expert consensus meeting, clinical research findings in the PCT-guided antibiotics treatment interventions and real-world clinical applications were discussed. From the perspective of antibiotic stewardship, PCT application target groups, cut-offs, and testing cycles were discussed to reach a consensus on the PCT-guided antibiotics treatment algorithm for application in Korea. Combining clinical assessment for patients with an appropriate PCT-guided antibiotics treatment algorithm could improve the diagnosis and treatment of acute respiratory infections and sepsis. In addition, continuous education and regular feedback would improve the effectiveness of antibiotic stewardship.

Purpose: We intend to investigate the oncological efficacy and feasibility of local consolidative therapy (LCT) through a meta-analysis method. Materials and Methods: Four databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched. Target studies are controlled trials comparing outcomes of LCT versus a control group. Primary endpoints are overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 54 studies involving 7,242 patients were included. Pooled analyses showed that the LCT arm could achieve improved OS with pooled odds ratio of 2.896 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.377 to 3.528; p < 0.001). Regarding PFS, pooled analyses showed pooled odds ratio of 3.045 (95% CI, 2.356 to 3.937; p < 0.001) in favor of the LCT arm. In the subgroup analyses including the studies with reliable comparability (e.g. randomized studies or intentionally matched studies without significant favorable prognosticator in LCT arms), pooled odds ratio was 2.548 (95% CI, 1.808 to 3.591; p < 0.001) favoring the LCT arm regarding OS. Regarding PFS, pooled OR was 2.656 (95% CI, 1.713 to 4.120; p < 0.001) which also favored the LCT arm. Subgroup analyses limited to the randomized controlled trials (RCT) were also performed and pooled odds ratios on OS and PFS were 1.535 (95% CI, 1.082 to 2.177; p=0.016) and 1.668 (95% CI, 1.187 to 2.344; p=0.003). The rates of grade ≥ 3 complications related to LCT was mostly low (< 10%) and not significantly higher compared to the control arm. Conclusion Pooled analyses results of all included studies, selected studies with reliable comparability, and RCT’s demonstrated the survival benefit of LCT. These consistent results suggest that LCT was beneficial to the patients with oligometastasis.