Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for nursing students as representatives of young adults and to evaluate its effects and applicability. Methods: We employed a one-group pretest/posttest design to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for young adults and to assess its impacts on post-pandemic health promotion behavior, health self-efficacy, depression, and stress among nursing students. Using an online ad, we recruited young adults aged 19 to 29 living in South Korea who were attending nursing school; those who provided informed consent to participate in the study were enrolled. Results: The no-contact health promotion behavior program was effective at improving health promotion behavior (Z=-2.90, p=.004) and health self-efficacy (Z=-2.24, p=.025) and at alleviating depression (Z=-2.13, p=.033). Conclusion This study confirmed the potential of a no-contact program to advance health management among young adults. It also substantiated the program’s effects on fostering experiences and promoting personal health among nursing students, who are prospective healthcare professionals.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for nursing students as representatives of young adults and to evaluate its effects and applicability. Methods: We employed a one-group pretest/posttest design to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for young adults and to assess its impacts on post-pandemic health promotion behavior, health self-efficacy, depression, and stress among nursing students. Using an online ad, we recruited young adults aged 19 to 29 living in South Korea who were attending nursing school; those who provided informed consent to participate in the study were enrolled. Results: The no-contact health promotion behavior program was effective at improving health promotion behavior (Z=-2.90, p=.004) and health self-efficacy (Z=-2.24, p=.025) and at alleviating depression (Z=-2.13, p=.033). Conclusion This study confirmed the potential of a no-contact program to advance health management among young adults. It also substantiated the program’s effects on fostering experiences and promoting personal health among nursing students, who are prospective healthcare professionals.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for nursing students as representatives of young adults and to evaluate its effects and applicability. Methods: We employed a one-group pretest/posttest design to develop a no-contact health promotion behavior program for young adults and to assess its impacts on post-pandemic health promotion behavior, health self-efficacy, depression, and stress among nursing students. Using an online ad, we recruited young adults aged 19 to 29 living in South Korea who were attending nursing school; those who provided informed consent to participate in the study were enrolled. Results: The no-contact health promotion behavior program was effective at improving health promotion behavior (Z=-2.90, p=.004) and health self-efficacy (Z=-2.24, p=.025) and at alleviating depression (Z=-2.13, p=.033). Conclusion This study confirmed the potential of a no-contact program to advance health management among young adults. It also substantiated the program’s effects on fostering experiences and promoting personal health among nursing students, who are prospective healthcare professionals.

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer, although variability exists in measurements. This study sought to evaluate the agreement between radiologists and automated breast density assessment software and assess the impact of breast density measures on breast cancer risk estimates using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model (v.2). A retrospective database search identified women who had undergone mammography between December 2021 and June 2022. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition index assigned by a radiologist (R) was recorded and analyzed using three commercially available software programs (S1, S2, and S3). The agreement rate and Cohen’s kappa (κ) were used to evaluate inter-rater agreements concerning breast density measures. The 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer in women was calculated using the BCSC model (v.2) with breast density inputs from various density estimation methods. Absolute differences in risk between various density measurements were evaluated. Overall, 1,949 women (mean age, 53.2 years) were included. The inter-rater agreement between R, S1, and S2 was 75.0–75.6%, while that between S3 and the others was 60.2%–63.3%. Kappa was substantial between R, S1, and S2 (0.66–0.68), and moderate (0.49–0.50) between S3 and the others. S3 placed fewer women in mammographic density d (14.9%) than R, S1, and S2 (40.5%–44.0%). In BCSC risk assessment (v.2), S3 assessed fewer women with a high 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer than the other methods, resulting in an absolute difference of 0% between R, S1, and S2 in 75.0%–75.6% of cases, whereas the difference between S3 and the other methods occurs in 60.2%–63.3% of cases. Breast density assessment using various methods showed moderate-to-substantial agreement, potentially affecting risk assessments. Precise and consistent breast density measurements may lead to personalized and effective strategies for breast cancer prevention.

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer, although variability exists in measurements. This study sought to evaluate the agreement between radiologists and automated breast density assessment software and assess the impact of breast density measures on breast cancer risk estimates using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model (v.2). A retrospective database search identified women who had undergone mammography between December 2021 and June 2022. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition index assigned by a radiologist (R) was recorded and analyzed using three commercially available software programs (S1, S2, and S3). The agreement rate and Cohen’s kappa (κ) were used to evaluate inter-rater agreements concerning breast density measures. The 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer in women was calculated using the BCSC model (v.2) with breast density inputs from various density estimation methods. Absolute differences in risk between various density measurements were evaluated. Overall, 1,949 women (mean age, 53.2 years) were included. The inter-rater agreement between R, S1, and S2 was 75.0–75.6%, while that between S3 and the others was 60.2%–63.3%. Kappa was substantial between R, S1, and S2 (0.66–0.68), and moderate (0.49–0.50) between S3 and the others. S3 placed fewer women in mammographic density d (14.9%) than R, S1, and S2 (40.5%–44.0%). In BCSC risk assessment (v.2), S3 assessed fewer women with a high 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer than the other methods, resulting in an absolute difference of 0% between R, S1, and S2 in 75.0%–75.6% of cases, whereas the difference between S3 and the other methods occurs in 60.2%–63.3% of cases. Breast density assessment using various methods showed moderate-to-substantial agreement, potentially affecting risk assessments. Precise and consistent breast density measurements may lead to personalized and effective strategies for breast cancer prevention.

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer, although variability exists in measurements. This study sought to evaluate the agreement between radiologists and automated breast density assessment software and assess the impact of breast density measures on breast cancer risk estimates using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model (v.2). A retrospective database search identified women who had undergone mammography between December 2021 and June 2022. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition index assigned by a radiologist (R) was recorded and analyzed using three commercially available software programs (S1, S2, and S3). The agreement rate and Cohen’s kappa (κ) were used to evaluate inter-rater agreements concerning breast density measures. The 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer in women was calculated using the BCSC model (v.2) with breast density inputs from various density estimation methods. Absolute differences in risk between various density measurements were evaluated. Overall, 1,949 women (mean age, 53.2 years) were included. The inter-rater agreement between R, S1, and S2 was 75.0–75.6%, while that between S3 and the others was 60.2%–63.3%. Kappa was substantial between R, S1, and S2 (0.66–0.68), and moderate (0.49–0.50) between S3 and the others. S3 placed fewer women in mammographic density d (14.9%) than R, S1, and S2 (40.5%–44.0%). In BCSC risk assessment (v.2), S3 assessed fewer women with a high 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer than the other methods, resulting in an absolute difference of 0% between R, S1, and S2 in 75.0%–75.6% of cases, whereas the difference between S3 and the other methods occurs in 60.2%–63.3% of cases. Breast density assessment using various methods showed moderate-to-substantial agreement, potentially affecting risk assessments. Precise and consistent breast density measurements may lead to personalized and effective strategies for breast cancer prevention.

Purpose: B-cell depleting therapies, including T-cell engager (TCE), are increasingly used for patients with hematologic malignancies, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between TCE therapy and COVID-19–related outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and B-cell lymphomas receiving B-cell depleting therapy. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with B-cell lymphoma, who were admitted to Seoul Natio-nal University Hospital with COVID-19 between September 2021 and February 2023, and received B-cell depleting therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with severe to critical COVID-19 and COVID-19–related mortality. Results: Of 54 patients with B-cell lymphomas and COVID-19 who received B-cell depleting therapy, 14 were treated with TCE (TCE group) and 40 with rituximab (RTX group). COVID-19–related mortality was higher in the TCE group than in the RTX group (57.1% vs. 12.5%, p=0.002). In multivariable analyses, TCE therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 38.76; p=0.024) and older age (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; p=0.035) were associated with severe to critical COVID-19. TCE therapy (aOR, 8.98; 95% CI, 1.48 to 54.40; p=0.017), older age (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.26; p=0.022), and prior bendamustine therapy (aOR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.17 to 51.65; p=0.034) were independent risk factors for COVID-19–related mortality. Conclusion B-cell lymphoma patients treated with TCE had significantly worse outcomes from COVID-19 than those treated with RTX. TCE therapy should be used with caution in B-cell lymphoma patients during the COVID-19 epidemic.