This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and safety profiles of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT)+abiraterone/prednisone with those of ADT+docetaxel in patients with de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Materials and Methods: A web-based database system was established to collect prospective cohort data for patients with mHSPC in Korea. From May 2019 to November 2022, 928 patients with mHSPC from 15 institutions were enrolled. Among these patients, data from 122 patients who received ADT+abiraterone/prednisone or ADT+docetaxel as the primary systemic treatment for mHSPC were collected. The patients were divided into two groups: ADT+abiraterone/prednisone group (n=102) and ADT+docetaxel group (n=20). We compared the demographic characteristics, medical histories, baseline cancer status, initial laboratory tests, metastatic burden, oncological outcomes for mHSPC, progression after mHSPC treatment, adverse effects, follow-up, and survival data between the two groups. Results: No significant differences in the demographic characteristics, medical histories, metastatic burden, and baseline cancer status were observed between the two groups. The ADT+abiraterone/prednisone group had a lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression rate (7.8% vs. 30.0%; p=0.011) and lower systemic treatment discontinuation rate (22.5% vs. 45.0%; p=0.037). No significant differences in adverse effects, oncological outcomes, and total follow-up period were observed between the two groups. Conclusions ADT+abiraterone/prednisone had lower PSA progression and systemic treatment discontinuation rates than ADT+docetaxel. In conclusion, further studies involving larger, double-blinded randomized trials with extended follow-up periods are necessary.

PURPOSE: With the emergence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology, profiling a wide range of genomic alterations has become a possibility resulting in improved implementation of targeted cancer therapy. In Asian populations, the prevalence and spectrum of clinically actionable genetic alterations has not yet been determined because of a lack of studies examining high-throughput cancer genomic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address this issue, 1,071 tumor samples were collected from five major cancer institutes in Korea and analyzed using targeted NGS at a centralized laboratory. Samples were either fresh frozen or formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) and the quality and yield of extracted genomic DNA was assessed. In order to estimate the effect of sample condition on the quality of sequencing results, tissue preparation method, specimen type (resected or biopsied) and tissue storage time were compared. RESULTS: We detected 7,360 non-synonymous point mutations, 1,164 small insertions and deletions, 3,173 copy number alterations, and 462 structural variants. Fifty-four percent of tumors had one or more clinically relevant genetic mutation. The distribution of actionable variants was variable among different genes. Fresh frozen tissues, surgically resected specimens, and recently obtained specimens generated superior sequencing results over FFPE tissues, biopsied specimens, and tissues with long storage duration. CONCLUSION: In order to overcome, challenges involved in bringing NGS testing into routine clinical use, a centralized laboratory model was designed that could improve the NGS workflows, provide appropriate turnaround times and control costs with goal of enabling precision medicine.
Academies and Institutes ; Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; DNA ; Humans ; Korea ; Methods ; Paraffin ; Point Mutation ; Precision Medicine ; Prevalence

PURPOSE: Eribulin mesilate was approved for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC), who had received at least two chemotherapeutic regimens, including anthracycline and taxane. On the other hand, the efficacy and safety information of eribulin in Korean patients is limited by the lack of clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase IV study, locally advanced or MBC patients were enrolled between June 2013 and April 2014 from 14 centers in Korea. One point four mg/m2 dose of eribulin was administered on days 1 and 8 of every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the frequency and intensity of the treatment emergent adverse event. The secondary endpoint was the disease control rate, which included the rate of complete responses, partial responses, and stable disease. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients received at least one dose of eribulin and were included in the safety set. The patients received a total of 543 treatment cycles, with a median of three cycles (range, 1 to 31 cycles). The most common adverse event was neutropenia (91.1% of patients, 48.3% of cycles). The frequent non-hematological adverse events included alopecia, decrease in appetite, fatigue/asthenia, and myalgia/arthralgia. The peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 27 patients (26.7%), including grade 3 in two patients. Disease control rate was 52.7% and 51.3% of patients in the full analysis set and per-protocol set, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasible safety profile and activity of eribulin in Korean patients with MBC.
Alopecia ; Appetite ; Breast Neoplasms* ; Breast* ; Clinical Study* ; Hand ; Humans ; Korea ; Mesylates* ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Neutropenia ; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases

PURPOSE: Although combining aromatase inhibitors (AI) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) is becoming more common, it is still not clear if GnRHa is as effective as bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of 66 premenopausal patients with hormone receptor– positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative recurrent and metastatic breast cancer who had been treated with AIs in combination with GnRHa or BSO between 2002 and 2015. RESULTS: The median patient age was 44 years. Overall, 24 (36%) received BSO and 42 (64%) received GnRHa. The clinical benefit rate was higher in the BSO group than in the GnRHa group (88% vs. 69%, p=0.092). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the BSO group, although statistical significance was not reached (17.2 months vs. 13.3 months, p=0.245). When propensity score matching was performed, the median PFS was 17.2 months for the BSO group and 8.2 months for the GnRHa group (p=0.137). Multivariate analyses revealed that the luminal B subtype (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 2.60; p=0.022) and later-line treatment (≥ third line vs. first line; hazard ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.59 to 6.59; p=0.001) were independent predictive factors for a shorter PFS. Incomplete ovarian suppression was observed in a subset of GnRHa-treated patients whose disease showed progression, with E2 levels higher than 21 pg/mL. CONCLUSION: Both BSO and GnRHa were found to be effective in our AI-treated premenopausal metastatic breast cancer patient cohort. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to determine if BSO is superior to GnRHa.
Aromatase Inhibitors* ; Aromatase* ; Breast Neoplasms* ; Breast* ; Cohort Studies ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone* ; Humans ; Multivariate Analysis ; Ovariectomy ; Phenobarbital ; Premenopause ; Propensity Score ; Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor ; Retrospective Studies

PURPOSE: This study analyzed the role of plasma biomarkers for TSU-68 in a previous phase II trial comparing TSU-68 plus docetaxel and docetaxel alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 77 patients were eligible for this study (38 in the TSU-68 plus docetaxel arm and 39 in the docetaxel alone arm). Blood samples were collected prior to the start of each cycle, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-AA, -AB, -BB, fibroblast growth factor, M30, C-reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels were measured using enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In patients with baseline PDGF-AA ≥ median, median PFS was significantly worse in the TSU-68 plus docetaxel group than in the docetaxel alone group (5.4 months vs. 13.7 months, p=0.049), while a trend toward a PFS benefit was observed in those with baseline PDGF-AA < median (9.7 months vs. 4.0 months, p=0.18; p for interaction=0.03). In the TSU-68 plus docetaxel group, PFS showed significant association with fold changes in CRP (p=0.001), IL-6 (p < .001), PDGF-BB (p=0.02), and VEGF (p=0.047) following the first treatment cycle. CONCLUSION: Baseline PDGF-AA levels and dynamics of VEGF, PDGF-BB, CRP, and IL-6 levels were predictive for the efficacy of TSU-68.
Arm ; Biological Markers* ; Breast Neoplasms* ; Breast* ; C-Reactive Protein ; Disease-Free Survival ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ; Fibroblast Growth Factors ; Humans ; Interleukin-6 ; Pharmacology ; Plasma* ; Platelet-Derived Growth Factor ; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A