1.Comparison of Finasteride and Dutasteride on Risk of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Pooled Analysis of 15Real-world Databases
Dae Yul YANG ; Won-Woo SEO ; Rae Woong PARK ; Sang Youl RHEE ; Jae Myung CHA ; Yoon Soo HAH ; Chang Won JEONG ; Kyung-Jin KIM ; Hyeon-Jong YANG ; Do Kyung KIM ; Ji Yong HA
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(1):188-196
		                        		
		                        			 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. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
2.Minocycline Susceptibility of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Blood Isolates from a Single Center in Korea: Role of tetB in Resistance
Taeeun KIM ; Eun Hee JEON ; Yoon-Kyoung HONG ; Jiwon JUNG ; Min Jae KIM ; Heungsup SUNG ; Mi-Na KIM ; Sung-Han KIM ; Sang-Ho CHOI ; Sang-Oh LEE ; Yang Soo KIM ; Yong Pil CHONG
Infection and Chemotherapy 2025;57(1):111-118
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) represents a devastating and growing global threat, calling for new antibiotic treatments. In Korea, the challenge of treating CRAB is compounded by high nosocomial acquisition rates and limited availability of novel antibiotics. Minocycline, a semisynthetic tetracycline derivative, has been proposed as a therapeutic option for CRAB infections. Nonsusceptibility to minocycline may occur through the efflux pump, TetB. The prevalence of tetB in A. baumannii has increased, along with higher minocycline minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs). We aimed to evaluate minocycline susceptibility rates in clinical strains of CRAB, and the association between tetB carriage and minocycline susceptibility across different genotypes. 
		                        		
		                        			Materials and Methods:
		                        			Representative CRAB blood isolates were collected from Asan Medical Center, Seoul.Minocycline susceptibility was assessed using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoint (≤4 mg/L) and the proposed pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) breakpoint (≤1 mg/L). Tigecycline was used as a comparator, and its susceptibility breakpoint for Enterobacterales defined by EUCAST was applied (≤0.5 mg/L).The presence of tetB was detected by PCR, and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was performed using seven housekeeping genes. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			Of the 160 CRAB blood isolates, 83.8% were susceptible to minocycline by the CLSI criteria, and 50.6% were PK-PD susceptible by the PK-PD criteria. The minocycline minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)50 /MIC90 was 1/8 mg/L. tetB was present in 49% of isolates and was associated with a higher minocycline MIC (MIC50/90 2/8 mg/L vs. 1/2 mg/L). No clear correlation was observed between tetB positivity and tigecycline MIC. Nine MLSTs were identified, with significant differences in tetB carriage rates between the major sequence types. Notably, ST191, associated with non-tetB carriage and greater susceptibility to minocycline, declined over the study period (P=0.004), while ST451, associated with tetB carriage, increased. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusion
		                        			tetB was present in 49% of CRAB isolates and was associated with higher MICs and non-susceptibility by both CLSI and PK-PD criteria. However, absence of tetB was not a reliable predictor of minocycline PK-PD susceptibility. Additionally, shifts over time towards genotypes with reduced minocycline susceptibility were observed. Further research is needed to correlate these findings with clinical outcomes and identify additional resistance mechanisms. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
3.Predicting Mortality and Cirrhosis-Related Complications with MELD3.0: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis
Jihye LIM ; Ji Hoon KIM ; Ahlim LEE ; Ji Won HAN ; Soon Kyu LEE ; Hyun YANG ; Heechul NAM ; Hae Lim LEE ; Do Seon SONG ; Sung Won LEE ; Hee Yeon KIM ; Jung Hyun KWON ; Chang Wook KIM ; U Im CHANG ; Soon Woo NAM ; Seok-Hwan KIM ; Pil Soo SUNG ; Jeong Won JANG ; Si Hyun BAE ; Jong Young CHOI ; Seung Kew YOON ; Myeong Jun SONG
Gut and Liver 2025;19(3):427-437
		                        		
		                        			 Background/Aims:
		                        			This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 for predicting mortality and liver-related complications compared with the Child-Pugh classification, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, the MELD, and the MELD sodium (MELDNa) score. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We evaluated a multicenter retrospective cohort of incorporated patients with cirrhosis between 2013 and 2019. We conducted comparisons of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the MELD3.0 and other models for predicting 3-month mortality. Additionally, we assessed the risk of cirrhosis-related complications according to the MELD3.0 score. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			A total of 3,314 patients were included. The mean age was 55.9±11.3 years, and 70.2% of the patients were male. Within the initial 3 months, 220 patients (6.6%) died, and the MELD3.0had the best predictive performance among the tested models, with an AUROC of 0.851, outperforming the Child-Pugh classification, ALBI grade, MELD, and MELDNa. A high MELD3.0score was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Compared with that of the group with a MELD3.0 score <10 points, the adjusted hazard ratio of the group with a score of 10–20 pointswas 2.176, and that for the group with a score of ≥20 points was 4.892. Each 1-point increase inthe MELD3.0 score increased the risk of cirrhosis-related complications by 1.033-fold. The risk of hepatorenal syndrome showed the highest increase, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.149, followed by hepatic encephalopathy and ascites. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			The MELD3.0 demonstrated robust prognostic performance in predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Moreover, the MELD3.0 score was linked to cirrhosis-related complications, particularly those involving kidney function, such as hepatorenal syndrome and ascites. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
4.The KAPARD guidelines for atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents:Part II. Systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy
Hwan Soo KIM ; Eun LEE ; Kyunghoon KIM ; Taek Ki MIN ; Dong In SUH ; Yoon Ha HWANG ; Sungsu JUNG ; Minyoung JUNG ; Young A PARK ; Minji KIM ; In Suk SOL ; You Hoon JEON ; Sung-Il WOO ; Yong Ju LEE ; Jong Deok KIM ; Hyeon-Jong YANG ; Gwang Cheon JANG ;
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):3-11
		                        		
		                        			
		                        			 Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
5.The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for colorectal cancer: a secondary publication
Kil-yong LEE ; Soo Young LEE ; Miyoung CHOI ; Moonjin KIM ; Ji Hong KIM ; Ju Myung SONG ; Seung Yoon YANG ; In Jun YANG ; Moon Suk CHOI ; Seung Rim HAN ; Eon Chul HAN ; Sang Hyun HONG ; Do Joong PARK ; Sang-Jae PARK ;
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(1):3-26
		                        		
		                        			
		                        			 The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
6.Comparison of Finasteride and Dutasteride on Risk of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Pooled Analysis of 15Real-world Databases
Dae Yul YANG ; Won-Woo SEO ; Rae Woong PARK ; Sang Youl RHEE ; Jae Myung CHA ; Yoon Soo HAH ; Chang Won JEONG ; Kyung-Jin KIM ; Hyeon-Jong YANG ; Do Kyung KIM ; Ji Yong HA
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(1):188-196
		                        		
		                        			 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. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
7.Comparison of Finasteride and Dutasteride on Risk of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Pooled Analysis of 15Real-world Databases
Dae Yul YANG ; Won-Woo SEO ; Rae Woong PARK ; Sang Youl RHEE ; Jae Myung CHA ; Yoon Soo HAH ; Chang Won JEONG ; Kyung-Jin KIM ; Hyeon-Jong YANG ; Do Kyung KIM ; Ji Yong HA
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(1):188-196
		                        		
		                        			 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. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
8.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
9.Stratifying Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis After Non-Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastric Cancer: Comparison of the eCura System and Elderly Criteria
Tae-woo KIM ; Hyo-Joon YANG ; Giho LEE ; Soo-Kyung PARK ; Yoon Suk JUNG ; Jung Ho PARK ; Dong Il PARK ; Chong Il SOHN
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):370-381
		                        		
		                        			 Purpose:
		                        			The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. 
		                        		
		                        			Materials and Methods:
		                        			A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
10.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
		                        		
		                        			 Purpose:
		                        			Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023. 
		                        		
		                        			Materials and Methods:
		                        			The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
            
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail