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.

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.

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: The career ladder system is a pivotal strategy for securing excellent nurses. The aim of this study is to understand hospital nurses’ experiences of participating in the career ladder system and to explore the essence of this system. Methods: In February 22 to March 3, 2022, nurses employed at a general hospital in South Korea were selected for this study using snowball and purposive sampling. Data were collected from interviews with three focus groups, the compositions of which are as follows: group 1, 6 participants; group 2, 5 participants; and group 3, 6 participants. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subsequently analyzed using qualitative research methods. Results: The following six categories were derived under the overall theme of “the arduous journey to discovering a nurse’s true name”: (1) rites of passage to becoming the ideal nurse; (2) unexpected challenges in the promotion preparation process; (3) biased criteria for evaluating nursing competencies; (4) unclear changes in roles and perceptions after promotion; (5) self-discovered pride and fulfillment as a nurse; and (6) the unspoken struggles of evaluators. Conclusion The findings suggest that the career ladder system fosters nurses’ professional growth and self-actualization. However, for effective implementation, nurses’ deep understanding and systematic management of the career ladder system are essential. This study offers valuable insights and benchmarks for healthcare institutions aiming to adopt the system.

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: The career ladder system is a pivotal strategy for securing excellent nurses. The aim of this study is to understand hospital nurses’ experiences of participating in the career ladder system and to explore the essence of this system. Methods: In February 22 to March 3, 2022, nurses employed at a general hospital in South Korea were selected for this study using snowball and purposive sampling. Data were collected from interviews with three focus groups, the compositions of which are as follows: group 1, 6 participants; group 2, 5 participants; and group 3, 6 participants. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subsequently analyzed using qualitative research methods. Results: The following six categories were derived under the overall theme of “the arduous journey to discovering a nurse’s true name”: (1) rites of passage to becoming the ideal nurse; (2) unexpected challenges in the promotion preparation process; (3) biased criteria for evaluating nursing competencies; (4) unclear changes in roles and perceptions after promotion; (5) self-discovered pride and fulfillment as a nurse; and (6) the unspoken struggles of evaluators. Conclusion The findings suggest that the career ladder system fosters nurses’ professional growth and self-actualization. However, for effective implementation, nurses’ deep understanding and systematic management of the career ladder system are essential. This study offers valuable insights and benchmarks for healthcare institutions aiming to adopt the system.

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: The career ladder system is a pivotal strategy for securing excellent nurses. The aim of this study is to understand hospital nurses’ experiences of participating in the career ladder system and to explore the essence of this system. Methods: In February 22 to March 3, 2022, nurses employed at a general hospital in South Korea were selected for this study using snowball and purposive sampling. Data were collected from interviews with three focus groups, the compositions of which are as follows: group 1, 6 participants; group 2, 5 participants; and group 3, 6 participants. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subsequently analyzed using qualitative research methods. Results: The following six categories were derived under the overall theme of “the arduous journey to discovering a nurse’s true name”: (1) rites of passage to becoming the ideal nurse; (2) unexpected challenges in the promotion preparation process; (3) biased criteria for evaluating nursing competencies; (4) unclear changes in roles and perceptions after promotion; (5) self-discovered pride and fulfillment as a nurse; and (6) the unspoken struggles of evaluators. Conclusion The findings suggest that the career ladder system fosters nurses’ professional growth and self-actualization. However, for effective implementation, nurses’ deep understanding and systematic management of the career ladder system are essential. This study offers valuable insights and benchmarks for healthcare institutions aiming to adopt the system.