Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Background: Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA. Methods: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively. Results: The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes. Conclusions TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Background: Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA. Methods: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively. Results: The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes. Conclusions TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Background: Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA. Methods: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively. Results: The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes. Conclusions TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.