Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Background: Guselkumab is a monoclonal antibody that selectively blocks the p19 subunit of interleukin-23. It has shown good efficacy and safety profile in several clinical trials of plaque psoriasis. However, studies on the efficacy of guselkumab in patients treated with other biologics are lacking. Objective: We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety profile of guselkumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. We also compared the efficacy of guselkumab between biologic-naïve (Bio-Naïve) and biologicexperienced (Bio-Ex) patients. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included 72 patients treated with guselkumab. The patients’ clinical characteristics and psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores were recorded at each visit. The PASI90 and PASI100 responses and mean PASI scores were compared between the Bio-Naïve and Bio-Ex groups. Results: Fifty-five Bio-Naïve patients and 17 Bio-Ex patients were included in the study. At week 20, there were no significant differences in the PASI90 (64.2% vs. 53.8%) and PASI100 (28.3% vs. 15.4%) responses between the groups. However, at weeks 36 and 44, the PASI90 response (week 36: 89.2% vs. 36.4% and week 44: 97.8% vs. 63.6%) and the PASI100 response (week 36: 64.9% vs. 18.2% and week 44: 68.9% vs. 27.3%) were significantly higher in the Bio-Naïve group (p＜0.05). There were no differences in PASI90 and PASI100 responses between the groups in terms of other clinical characteristics and comorbidities at week 20. Conclusion The efficacy of guselkumab remained consistent among patients in whom other biologics had failed. However, the efficacy was slightly lower in the Bio-Ex group than in the Bio-Naïve group.

Purpose: To compare the prognosis of patients with axillary adenocarcinoma from an unknown primary (ACUPax) origin with negative MRI results and those with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Materials and Methods: The breast MRI images of 32 patients with ACUPax without signs of primary breast cancer on mammography and ultrasound (US) were analyzed. Spot compression-magnification mammography and second-look US were performed for the area of MRI abnormality in patients with positive results; any positive findings corresponding to the MRI abnormality were confirmed by biopsy. If suspicious MRI lesions could not be localized on mammography or US, MR-guided biopsy or excision biopsy after MR-guided localization was performed. We compared the prognosis of patients with negative breast MRI with that for patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Results: Primary breast cancers were confirmed in 8 (25%) patients after breast MRI. Primary breast cancers were not detected on MRI in 24 (75%) patients, including five cases of false-positive MRI results. Twenty-three patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) followed by whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) and chemotherapy (n=17) or subsequent chemotherapy only (n=2). Recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur during follow up in 7/8 patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers and 22/24 patients with negative MRI results. Regional recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur in any MR-negative patient who received adjuvant chemotherapy after ALND and WBRT. Conclusion The prognoses of MR-negative patients with ACUPax who received ALND and WBRT followed by chemotherapy were as good as those of patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers.

Purpose: Extravasation of diagnostic and therapeutic materials might occur when the intravascular solution leaks into the surrounding tissues. Injury associated with extravasation depends on various factors. It may range from mild skin reaction to severe necrosis. However, the incidence rate for extravasation is largely unknown because of the limited reporting in Korea. Therefore, this study was conducted to identify the incidence of extravasation and nurses’ attitude and knowledge of extravasation for providing high-quality nursing care. Methods: Three acute care hospitals were surveyed to estimate the occurrence of extravasation. Knowledge and attitude toward extravasation were investigated from 793 nurses working in six hospitals. Results: The incidence rate of extravasation was 0.5%. Extravasation commonly occurred in elderly patients aged 66 or older (59.9%) and internal medicine (48.2%), and it happened 13.73±20.68 days after hospitalization on average.It mostly occurred in the forearm site (52.9%) and was mainly caused by parenteral nutrition (33.6%). The mean scores of nurses’ knowledge and attitude were 14.63±2.86 and 28.91±36.00, respectively. There was a significant negative correlation between the subjects' knowledge and attitude (r=-.11, p=.002). Conclusion It is necessary to have a reporting system that can accurately monitor the occurrence of extravasation for patient safety management. In addition, it is necessary to develop a protocol that can be applied to clinical practice and a nurse education program.

Background: Biologics-experienced patients are more likely to show a lower response to biologics than that of biologic-naïve patients. However, no consensus on switching biologics exists. Objective: We aimed to investigate the switching patterns and efficacy of the switched biologics in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in actual clinical practice. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included 37 patients with a history of switching biologics. We analyzed the reasons for switching, the switching patterns, and psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 response rates after switching biologics. We also analyzed the factors affecting the PASI75 response rate to the second biologic. Results: The reasons for switching baseline biologics were primary failure in five patients (13.5%), secondary failure in 28 patients (75.7%), and adverse events in four patients (10.8%). The second biologics prescribed mostly include interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor in twenty-four patients (64.9%), IL-17 inhibitor in eight patients (21.6%), tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor in three patients (8.1%), and IL-12/23 inhibitor in two patients (5.4%). A total of 46% of patients (17/37) switched biologics from IL-12/23 inhibitors to IL-23 inhibitors. The PASI75 response rates at the primary endpoint of the second and third biologics were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively. Our study found that female sex and obesity were associated with the primary failure of the second biologic. Conclusion Secondary failure was the most common reason for switching baseline biologics. Korean dermatologists prefer different classes of biologics while switching. The PASI75 response rates at the primary endpoints of the second and third biologics were relatively satisfactory.

Purpose: Pelvis fractures are associated with bladder and urethral injury (BUI). The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors associated with BUI in patients with pelvic fracture. Methods: Patients (> 18 years) with pelvic injury (N = 314) at our hospital between January 2015 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed for age, sex, cause of injury, initial vital signs, urine red blood cell (RBC) count, Glasgow Coma Scale and Abbreviated Injury Scale score, Injury Severity Score, preperitoneal pelvic packing, and femur, lumbar spine, and pelvic fractures. Results: Compared with the BUI-absent group, the BUI-present group had a greater percentage of patients who were male (79.2% vs. 55.9%; p = 0.026), had a urine RBC count/high power field (HPF) ≥ 30 (94.4% vs. 38.8%; p < 0.001), underwent preperitoneal pelvic packing (37.5% vs. 18.6%; p = 0.035), had symphysis pubis diastasis (33.3% vs. 11.7%; p = 0.008), and had sacroiliac joint dislocation (54.2% vs. 23.4%; p = 0.001). Independent risk factors associated with BUI were symphysis pubis diastasis [odds ratio (OR) was 3.958 (95% confidence interval: 1.191–13.154); p = 0.025] and a urine RBC count/HPF ≥ 30 [OR = 25.415 (95% confidence interval: 3.252–198.637); p = 0.006]. Of those with BUI, 15 patients were diagnosed at the trauma bay, and 9 had a delayed diagnosis. Conclusion Patients with pelvic injury who display symphysis pubis diastasis or have a urine RBC count/ HPF ≥ 30 are at higher risk of BUI, therefore, further BUI investigations should be considered.