Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Purpose: The aims were to investigate potential differences in clinical assessments among acute pain-related temporomandibular disorder (TMD) with different concordance value (CV) between number of self-reported painful site (NSP) and number of painful sites on palpation (NPP), and if it makes sense to treat them differently. Methods: A total of 61 patients were divided into three groups according to CV: 10 patients (concordance poor [CP]), 19 patients (concordance moderate [CM]), and 32 patients (concordance high [CH]). Clinical assessments were conducted using a standardized method in diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD). We compared collected information including sex, diagnosis, numerical rating scale (NRS), NPP, NSP, sleep duration, DC/TMD Axis II questionnaire, and perceived stress scale among three groups. Results: Among the clinical assessment, NRS, sleep duration, NPP, NSP, total scores of Oral Behaviors Checklist, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-15, PHQ-9 showed significant differences among 3 groups. NRS, NPP, NSP, PHQ-15, and PHQ-9 were higher in the CP group than in the CM and CH groups. Sleep duration was positively and NPP, NRS were negatively correlated with CV. Conclusions While previous studies suggested differences between chronic and acute TMD in DC/TMD items, our findings propose the CV might be a key factor that could predict the severity and susceptibility of acute-TMD patients. However, Additional studies are required to determine whether their long-term prognosis was similar to that of chronic pain patients and what the response to treatment was among the three groups.

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of tooth widths, intermolar widths, and arch lengths acquired through two intraoral scanners, including iTero Element Plus Series (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and Trios 4 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), specifically on mixed dentition. A total of 30 subjects were divided into 2 groups, each undergoing both alginate impressions and intraoral scanning using either the iTero or Trios scanner. The plaster models were measured with a caliper, while the digital models were measured virtually. In the iTero group, all tooth width measurements exhibited differences compared to the plaster values, except for maxillary left lateral incisors (p = 0.179), mandibular right (p = 0.285), and left (p = 0.073) central incisors. The Trios group did not display significant differences in any of the tooth width measurements. Intermolar width comparisons for both groups indicated differences, except for mandibular primary canine to primary canine values (p = 0.426) in the iTero group. Regarding arch length, the mandibular anterior, maxillary right, and left arch lengths in the iTero group demonstrated larger caliper values than those of iTero. Conversely, in the Trios group, all parameters showed smaller caliper values, especially in upper anterior, maxillary right, mandibular right, and mandibular left arch lengths with significance (p = 0.027, 0.007, 0.003, and 0.047, respectively). Despite the differences between the two groups, digital models might be clinically suitable alternatives for plaster models. Pediatric dentists should carefully assess these differences, as a comprehensive evaluation would result in precise orthodontic treatment planning and favorable outcomes for young patients with mixed dentition.

The first edition of ‘A Standardized Pathology Report for Gastric Cancer’ was initiated by the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists and published 17 years ago. Since then, significant advances have been made in the pathologic diagnosis, molecular genetics, and management of gastric cancer (GC). To reflect those changes, a committee for publishing a second edition of the report was formed within the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists. This second edition consists of two parts: standard data elements and conditional data elements.The standard data elements contain the basic pathologic findings and items necessary to predict the prognosis of GC patients, and they are adequate for routine surgical pathology service. Other diagnostic and prognostic factors relevant to adjuvant therapy, including molecular biomarkers, are classified as conditional data elements to allow each pathologist to selectively choose items appropriate to the environment in their institution. We trust that the standardized pathology report will be helpful for GC diagnosis and facilitate large-scale multidisciplinary collaborative studies.

The first edition of ‘A Standardized Pathology Report for Gastric Cancer’ was initiated by the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists and published 17 years ago. Since then, significant advances have been made in the pathologic diagnosis, molecular genetics, and management of gastric cancer (GC). To reflect those changes, a committee for publishing a second edition of the report was formed within the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists. This second edition consists of two parts: standard data elements and conditional data elements. The standard data elements contain the basic pathologic findings and items necessary to predict the prognosis of GC patients, and they are adequate for routine surgical pathology service. Other diagnostic and prognostic factors relevant to adjuvant therapy, including molecular biomarkers, are classified as conditional data elements to allow each pathologist to selectively choose items appropriate to the environment in their institution. We trust that the standardized pathology report will be helpful for GC diagnosis and facilitate large-scale multidisciplinary collaborative studies.

Background: There are increasing concerns about that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) could be omitted in patients with clinically T1-2 N0 breast cancers who has negative axillary ultrasound (AUS). This study aims to assess the false negative result (FNR) of AUS, the rate of high nodal burden (HNB) in clinically T1-2 N0 breast cancer patients, and the diagnostic performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nomogram. Methods: We identified 948 consecutive patients with clinically T1-2 N0 cancers who had negative AUS, subsequent MRI, and breast conserving therapy between 2013 and 2020 from two tertiary medical centers. Patients from two centers were assigned to development and validation sets, respectively. Among 948 patients, 402 (mean age ± standard deviation, 57.61 ± 11.58) were within development cohort and 546 (54.43 ± 10.02) within validation cohort. Using logistic regression analyses, clinical-imaging factors associated with lymph node (LN) metastasis were analyzed in the development set from which nomogram was created. The performance of MRI and nomogram was assessed. HNB was defined as ≥ 3 positive LNs. Results: The FNR of AUS was 20.1% (81 of 402) and 19.2% (105 of 546) and the rates of HNB were 1.2% (5/402) and 2.2% (12/546), respectively. Clinical and imaging features associated with LN metastasis were progesterone receptor positivity, outer tumor location on mammography, breast imaging reporting and data system category 5 assessment of cancer on ultrasound, and positive axilla on MRI. In validation cohorts, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI and clinical-imaging nomogram was 58.5% and 86.5%, and 56.0% and 82.0%, respectively. Conclusion The FNR of AUS was approximately 20% but the rate of HNB was low. The diagnostic performance of MRI was not satisfactory with low PPV but MRI had merit in reaffirming negative AUS with high NPV. Patients who had low probability scores from our clinical-imaging nomogram might be possible candidates for the omission of SLNB.