Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: There have been few reports on comparison between sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy in Korean metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We sought to analyze the treatment trends of metastatic ccRCC by comparing the effects and adverse events of sunitinib and pazopanib. Materials and Methods: Data of 357 metastatic RCC patients who received the sunitinib or pazopanib as the first-line targeted therapy from the Daegyeong Oncology Study Group database was obtained and analyzed. Among these patients, patients who only clear cell type was confirmed after needle biopsy or nephrectomy were included, and patients who underwent target therapy for less than 3 months were excluded. Results: Of 251 patients who met the inclusion criteria, sunitinib and pazopanib group were identified in 156 (62%) and 95 patients (38%), respectively. Pazopanib group was older (66 years vs. 61 years, p=0.001) and more symptomatic (65% vs. 52%, p=0.037) and had more patients with Karnofsky performance status <80 (20% vs. 11%, p=0.048) and fewer number of organ metastases (p=0.004) compared to sunitinib group. There was no significant difference in disease control rate (88.5% vs. 87.3%, p=0.744), the median progression-free survival (19 months vs. 15 months, p=0.444) and overall survival (25 months vs. 19 months, p=0.721) between sunitinib and pazopanib. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events with sunitinib and pazopanib were anemia (5%) and hand-foot syndrome (3%), respectively. There was no significant difference between sunitinib and pazopanib in number of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events (15% vs. 11%, p=0.275). However, there were more patients who discontinued treatment due to only adverse events in sunitinib group compared to pazopanib group (12% vs. 3%, p=0.020). Conclusions In Korean metastatic ccRCC, pazopanib tended to be used in patients with poorer health status compared to sunitinib. Sunitinib and pazopanib had no significant difference in treatment effect and survival, but pazopanib had more tolerable adverse events.

Purpose: To differentiate a non-cancer-related temporary increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) triggering unnecessary biopsy, we intentionally delayed biopsy with a serial follow-up, then investigated the efficacy of this strategy in identifying a significant prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods: Retrospective data of patients who initially presented with a suspicious level of serum PSA (3–20 ng/mL), managed using the delayed strategy, and then eventually underwent biopsy were obtained from 4 tertiary centers between 2018–2020. Results: The collected 271 subjects had a median (interquartile range) PSA, age, and prostate volume of 5.03 ng/mL (4.46–7.79 ng/mL), 67 years (61–73 years), and 38 g (28–50 g), respectively. During the delay period of 8 weeks (4–19 weeks), most were managed with alpha-blockers (85.6%, n=232). Ninety-four (34.7%) experienced a PSA decrease of 20.53% (8.82–38.16). Eventual biopsy revealed 115 PCa cases (42.5%) including 82 significant ones and 46 high-risk diseases. Men with a PSA decrease had a lower probability of PCa (31.9% vs. 48%, p=0.014), a significant disease (21.3% vs. 35.0%, p=0.026), and high-risk PCa (7.4% vs. 22.0%, p=0.002) than the PSA-elevated counterparts. However, the degree of PSA decrease was not associated with the presence or the severity of PCa. In patients with PSA normalization (≤3 ng/mL), though 4 patients of them (66%) had PCa including a single significant disease, none had high-risk disease. Conclusions About one-third of individuals initially indicated for transrectal biopsy experienced a decrease in PSA, and their chance for significant PCa was diminished. This retrospective study suggests PSA normalization could be an acceptable notion, though requires further investigation.

Background: Hereditary hemolytic anemia (HHA) is a rare disease characterized by premature red blood cell (RBC) destruction due to intrinsic RBC defects. The RBC Disorder Working Party of the Korean Society of Hematology established and updated the standard operating procedure for making an accurate diagnosis of HHA since 2007. The aim of this study was to investigate a nationwide epidemiology of Korean HHA. Methods: We collected the data of a newly diagnosed pediatric HHA cohort (2007–2016) and compared this cohort's characteristics with those of a previously surveyed pediatric HHA cohort (1997–2006) in Korea. Each participant's information was retrospectively collected by a questionnaire survey. Results: A total of 369 children with HHA from 38 hospitals distributed in 16 of 17 districts of Korea were investigated. RBC membranopathies, hemoglobinopathies, RBC enzymopathies, and unknown etiologies accounted for 263 (71.3%), 59 (16.0%), 23 (6.2%), and 24 (6.5%) of the cases, respectively. Compared to the cohort from the previous decade, the proportions of hemoglobinopathies and RBC enzymopathies significantly increased (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). Twenty-three of the 59 hemoglobinopathy patients had immigrant mothers, mostly from South-East Asia. Conclusion In Korea, thalassemia traits have increased over the past 10 years, reflecting both increased awareness of this disease and increased international marriages. The enhanced recognition of RBC enzymopathies is due to advances in diagnostic technique; however, 6.5% of HHA patients still do not have a clear diagnosis. It is necessary to improve accessibility of diagnosing HHA.

Background: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) constitutes 10%–20% of all malignant lymphomas and has a high cure rate (5-year survival, around 90%). Recently, interest has increased concerning preventing secondary complications (secondary cancer, endocrine disorders) in long-term survivors. We aimed to study the epidemiologic features and therapeutic outcomes of HL in children, adolescents, and young adults in Korea. Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of 224 patients aged < 25 years diagnosed with HL at 22 participating institutes in Korea from January 2007 to August 2016. Results: A higher percentage of males was diagnosed at a younger age. Nodular sclerosis histopathological HL subtype was most common, followed by mixed cellularity subtype.Eighty-one (36.2%), 101 (45.1%), and 42 (18.8%) patients were classified into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine was the most common protocol (n = 102, 45.5%). Event-free survival rate was 86.0% ± 2.4%, while five-year overall survival (OS) rate was 96.1% ± 1.4%: 98.7% ± 1.3%, 97.7% ± 1.6%, and 86.5% ± 5.6% in the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively (P = 0.021). Five-year OS was worse in patients with B-symptoms, stage IV disease, highrisk, splenic involvement, extra-nodal lymphoma, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase level.In multivariate analysis, B-symptoms and extra-nodal involvement were prognostic factors for poor OS. Late complications of endocrine disorders and secondary malignancy were observed in 17 and 6 patients, respectively. Conclusion This is the first study on the epidemiology and treatment outcomes of HL in children, adolescents, and young adults in Korea. Future prospective studies are indicated to develop therapies that minimize treatment toxicity while maximizing cure rates in children, adolescents, and young adults with HL.