Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Cardio-oncology is a critical field due to the escalating significance of cardiovascular toxicity as a side effect of anti‑ cancer treatments. Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a prevalent condition associated with car‑ diovascular toxicity, necessitating effective strategies for prediction, monitoring, management, and tracking. This comprehensive review examines the definition and risk stratification of CTRCD, explores monitoring approaches during anticancer therapy, and highlights specific cardiovascular toxicities linked to various cancer treatments. These include anthracyclines, HER2-targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes therapies. Incorporating the Korean data, this review offers insights into the regional nuances in managing CTRCD. Using systematic follow-up incorporating cardiovascular imaging and biomarkers, a better understanding and management of CTRCD can be achieved, optimizing the cardiovascular health of both cancer patients and survivors.