Citations

Clear

75 citation(s) found for "Kim, Hee-Je".

NCCN Risk Groups Do Not Predict Adverse Pathology or Oncologic Outcomes Among Patients With Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer in the MRI Era
Li, Eric V , Kim, Tae-Hee , Wang, Michael K., O'Byrne, Jamie, Shi, Chloe , Galatowitsch, Peter , Gettman, Matthew

Mayo Clinic

The Prostate | September 27, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1002/pros.70261 | PMID 42801734 Get It

ABSTRACT Background Prior studies in the pre‐MRI era suggest that patients with NCCN Intermediate and High Risk Grade Group 1 prostate cancer (GG1 PCa) on biopsy have increased risk for adverse oncologic outcomes. However, prostate MRI has altered patient selection for biopsy and improved prostate sampling. Herein, we examined factors associated with adverse pathologic features (APF) at radical prostatectomy (RP) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) among patients with GG1 in the MRI era. Methods A prospectively maintained institutional prostate cancer registry identified patients with GG1 PCa on biopsy who underwent RP from 2000 to 2023, stratified by MRI use. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression identified factors associated with APF at RP (GG3‐5, ≥ pT3a, or pN1) and BCR free survival (two consecutive PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL), respectively. Results Among patients without MRI ( n = 6732), NCCN risk group was associated with APF, BCR, and distant metastasis. Among 302 patients with GG1 and pre‐operative MRI, NCCN risk group was associated with neither APF nor BCR. Age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.14, p = 0.01), PIRADS ( p = 0.01), and % core positivity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.03, p = 0.04) were associated with APF. Age (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.13, p = 0.03), APF (HR 4.36, 95% CI 2.14–8.86, p < 0.001), and positive margins (HR 4.88, 95% CI 2.39–9.98, p < 0.001) were associated with BCR. Conclusions Prior to prostate MRI, NCCN risk groups offered meaningful prognostication among patients with GG1 PCa. However, the utility of NCCN risk groups for GG1 in the MRI era appears limited. Contemporary risk stratification for GG1 should focus on biopsy and MRI characteristics rather than NCCN criteria.
From High Cost to High Access: The Impact of Generic Abiraterone on Medicare Part D Spending in Advanced Prostate Cancer
Lee, Matthew S. , Kim, Tae-Hee , Roberson, Daniel S. , Sharma, Vidit , Wymer, Kevin , Kwon, Eugene D, Karnes, R Jeffrey, Boorjian, Stephen A. , Khanna, Abhinav

Mayo Clinic

Urology Practice | August 4, 2026 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 580-587

10.1097/upj.0000000000001066 | PMID 42550948 Get It

Regional practice differences significantly impact benefit from post-HCT gilteritinib for FLT3-ITD AML
Levis, Mark J. , Hamadani, Mehdi , Logan, Brent R, Jones, Richard J., Singh, Anurag K, Litzow, Mark R. , Papadopoulos, Esperanza B. , Perl, Alexander E. , Soiffer, Robert J., Üstün, Celalettin , Vasu, Sumithira, Solh, Melhem , Mishra, Asmita , Muffly, Lori , Stelljes, Matthias, Onozawa, Masahiro , Thomson, Kirsty , Chen, Caroline , Hasabou, Nahla, Rosales, Matt, Gill, Stanley C. , Nuthethi, Rishita, King, Denise , Mendizabal, Adam , Horowitz, Mary M, Chen, Yi‐Bin , Papadopoulos, Esperanza , Perl, Alexander E , Ustun, Celalettin , Ueda Oshima, Masumi , Uy, Geoffrey , Waller, Edmund K , Muffly, Lori , Kim, Hee-Je , Najima, Yuho , Onozawa, Masahiro , Hill, Jason , Devine, Steven , Chen, Yi-Bin , Hamadani, Mehdi , Logan, Brent R. , Jones, Richard J. , Singh, Anurag K. , Wingard, John R. , Soiffer, Robert J. , Ueda, Masumi , Uy, Geoffrey L. , Waller, Edmund K. , Vasu, Sumithira , Stelljes, Matthias , Hill, Jason E. , Devine, Steven M. , Horowitz, Mary M.

Mayo Clinic

Blood Advances | July 31, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1182/bloodadvances.2026020327 | PMID 42532509 Get It

BMT CTN 1506 ("MORPHO") was a phase 3 study of post-hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) maintenance with gilteritinib versus placebo for patients with FLT3-ITD-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first remission. Subgroup analysis indicated a significant benefit of post-HCT gilteritinib for participants in North America, but no benefit for those in Europe or Asia. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the data focusing on days from AML diagnosis to HCT, pre-HCT FLT3 inhibitor use, and FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease (MRD). Participants transplanted &lt; 120 days from AML diagnosis and/or those treated with FLT3 inhibition pre-HCT were more likely to have improved survival from post-HCT gilteritinib. Pre-HCT MRD levels were higher (P = 0.001) in participants transplanted within 120 days from diagnosis and in those treated with a FLT3 inhibitor pre-HCT and transplanted within 120 days (P = 0.008). Pre-HCT MRD was dependent on both FLT3 inhibitor use and time to HCT, as participants treated with successive courses of chemotherapy + FLT3 inhibition had successively lower MRD by the time of HCT. Time from AML diagnosis to HCT and pre-HCT FLT3 inhibitor use both appeared to impact MRD levels immediately prior to HCT, and geographic differences in these two practice patterns likely accounted for the observed regional differences in benefit from post-HCT gilteritinib. Increasing the number of courses of treatment pre-HCT may lower MRD sufficiently to eliminate the need for post-HCT inhibition, but with a presumed risk of some patients experiencing early progression. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02997202.
Caring for Transgender and Gender-diverse Parents
Kim, Hyun-Hee, Evangelinos, Eirini, Fonseca, Emrys , Cosner, Chelsea, Kim, Hyun-Hee , Cosner, Chelsea R.

Mayo Clinic

Psychiatric Annals | June 16, 2026 | Volume: 56 | Issue: 6 | Pages: No page available

10.3928/00485713-20260402-01 Get It

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people comprise approximately 0.9% of adults in the United States; among them, 18% to 50% of TGD adults surveyed report being parents. Younger generations of Americans are more likely to identify as TGD, and also more likely to desire children than previous generations of TGD individuals surveyed. Despite this, TGD parents are often underrepresented in literature on parenting experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) parents. TGD parents experience significant mental health, physical health, and socioeconomic disparities due to gender minority stressors, and numerous barriers to reproductive care and affirming mental health care. This article presents an overview of the current literature on TGD parents, psychosocial outcomes for children of TGD parents, common clinical issues that may arise in treatment, and strategies for supporting TGD families to build resilience.
Industry payments by drug and medical device manufacturers to Sexual Medicine Society of North America fellowship program directors
Kim, Tae-Hee , Gross, M, Köhler, Tobias , Ziegelmann, M, Gross, Martin , Ziegelmann, Matthew J, Helo, Sevann , Kim, Tae-Hee , Ziegelmann, Matthew

Mayo Clinic

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | June 9, 2026 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 7 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/jsxmed/qdag196 | PMID 42348864 Get It

Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Electrocardiography in Practice: A State-of-the-Art Review
Lee, Hak Seung , Croon, Philip, Lee, M, Poterucha, Timothy J. , Lin, Chin H., Son, J, Jeon, Ki Hyun , Tarabanis, Constantine , Lee, Seung‐Pyo , Kim, Kyung-Hee , Pandey, Ambarish , Kwon, J, Kim, Kyung‐Hee , Croon, Philip M , Lee, Min Sung , Poterucha, Timothy Joseph , Lin, Chin , Son, Jeong Min , Kwon, Joon-Myoung , Pandey, Ambarish

Mayo Clinic

Korean Circulation Journal | February 10, 2026 | Volume: 56 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 199

10.4070/kcj.2025.0486 | PMID 41866890 Get It

Effect of FLT3 maintenance in older FLT3-ITD+ adults undergoing allogeneic HCT. a post hoc analysis of BMT CTN 1506
Abedin, Sameem , Baidoo, Victor, Szabo, Aniko, Jones, Richard J. , Singh, Anurag K. , Litzow, Mark R. , Papadopoulos, Esperanza B. , Perl, Alexander E. , Soiffer, Robert J. , Üstün, Celalettin , Oshima, Masumi Ueda, Vasu, Sumithira , Solh, Melhem , Mishra, Asmita , Muffly, Lori , Stelljes, Matthias , Onozawa, Masahiro , Chen, Caroline , Hasabou, Nahla, Rosales, Mathew, Gill, Stanley C. , Nuthethi, Rishita, King, Denise , Mendizabal, Adam , Horowitz, Mary, Chen, Yi‐Bin , Levis, Mark J., Muffly, Lori , Abedin, Sameem , Litzow, Mark R. , Wingard, John R. , Oshima, Masumi Ueda, Uy, Geoffrey L. , Waller, Edmund K. , Kim, Hee-Je , Najima, Yuho , Rosales, Mathew, Hill, Jason E. , King, Denise, Devine, Steven M. , Levis, Mark J. , Hamadani, Mehdi

Mayo Clinic

Blood | December 4, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 170-170

10.1182/blood-2025-170 Get It

Abstract INTRODUCTION Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is indicated in patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. The randomized BMT CTN 1506 trial (Levis et al. JCO) demonstrated that maintenance with FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (gilt) significantly improved relapse-free survival (RFS) among pts with detectable peri-alloHCT minimal residual disease (MRD) but was also associated with a greater degree of myelosuppression and infections. In older pts, aged &gt;60 years, increasing post-HCT toxicity may adversely impact outcomes. On this basis, we performed a post-hoc analysis of pts aged &gt; 60 years enrolled onto BMT CTN 1506 to examine the impact of gilteritinib maintenance in older pts. METHODS Pts ≥60 years randomized on BMT CTN 1506 (gilt=47, placebo=57; N=104) were included. The primary endpoint of this post-hoc analysis was RFS. We additionally assessed overall survival (OS), incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) in all pts and in pts with detectable MRD. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were balanced. Age was similar (65.2 vs 64.7 years; p = 0.12), as was prior TKI exposure, and NPM1 mutation status. Myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 8 (17%) pts randomized to gilt and 18 (32%) pts randomized to placebo (p=0.08). Median f/u of survivors was 43.8 months (range:1-61 mo.). Estimated RFS and OS at 48 months were not different between groups (RFS: gilt: 57.0%, 95%CI 44.1-73.7%, placebo: 57.1%, 95%CI 45.4-71.8%; OS: gilt: 56.9%, 95%CI 42.9-46.7%, placebo: 58.4%, 95%CI 46.7-73.1%). While gilt assignment did not affect survival, several predictors of poorer survival were identified including use of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (HR = 3.46; p = 0.014), use of calcineurin inhibitor/MTX for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (HR = 2.29; p = 0.041), high-risk cytogenetics (HR = 2.64; p = 0.021), and MRD (+) pre-HCT (HR = 2.29; p = 0.018). Finally, relative to gilt assignment, opposing rates of relapse and NRM were observed. The incidence of relapse was lower with gilt (16%, 95%CI 6.8-28% vs 32%, 95%CI 20-45%, p=0.046) but NRM was higher (27%, 95%CI 15-41% vs 11%, 95% CI 4.3-21%, p=0.033). We next analyzed the 49 pts (gilt=22, placebo=27) with detectable peri-HCT MRD. RFS and OS again were not different (RFS: gilt: 44.4%, 95%CI 27.1-72.7%, placebo: 43.8%, 95%CI 28.4-67.5%, OS: gilt: 49.2%,95%CI, 31.3-77.4%, placebo: 55.6%, 95%CI 39.4-77.8%). The incidence of relapse trended lower in gilt pts (25%, 95%CI, 5.3-44.7% vs 45% (95%CI, 25-63%), p=0.2) while NRM trended higher (31%, 95%CI 12-52% vs 11%, 95%CI, 2.7-26%, p=0.12). Seventeen (36%) patients completed planned 2 year maintenance with gilt compared to 29 (51%) completing therapy with placebo. Median time on gilt was 13.2 months. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n=19, 40%), of which cytopenias (n=8) and infections (n=4) were most frequent. Non-relapse causes of death among gilt treated pts included infections (n=8), intracranial hemorrhage related to thrombocytopenia (n=1), second cancer (n=1), and Guillain-Barre syndrome (n=1). Most infections (n=5) were attributed to GVHD as an underlying cause. CONCLUSION Among pts aged ≥60 years, gilt maintenance did not improve RFS or OS. Gilt use was associated with reduced relapse regardless of peri-HCT MRD status demonstrating disease effect; however, higher NRM limited overall benefit. In older FLT3 mutated pts, employing strategies to mitigate HCT related toxicity, e.g. alternative GVHD prophylaxis strategies, may better accommodate use of maintenance therapy including gilt. Lower doses of gilt (particularly with azole co-use) may be worth exploring to mitigate drug AEs, improve compliance, thus further improving benefit.
What Is Clinical Anatomy?—A Consensus Statement From the American Association of Clinical Anatomists
Rajaram‐Gilkes, Mathangi, Chaiyamoon, Arada , Ezra, David , Raoof, Ameed , Rae, Guenevere , Mtui, Estomih P., Detton, Alan J., Anand, Mahindra , Raeburn, Kazzara , Kim, Hee‐Jin , Sekhar, Laligam N., Watanabe, Koichi , D’Antoni, Anthony V. , Loukas, Marios , Spinner, Robert J. , Tubbs, R. Shane, Iwanaga, Joe , Ezra, David , Rae, Guenevere , Kim, Hee-Jin , Watanabe, Koichi , Antoni, Anthony D' , Loukas, Marios , Spinner, Robert J , Adds, Philip , Iwanaga, Joe , Bubb, Kathleen , Rajaram-Gilkes, Mathangi, Noël, Geoffroy P. J. C. , Hur, Mi-Sun , Sekhar, Laligam N. , Tabira, Yoko , Khalil, Mohammed K. , Adds, Philip J.

Mayo Clinic

Clinical Anatomy | October 21, 2025 | Volume: 39 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 72-76

10.1002/ca.70040 | PMID 41117176 Get It

ABSTRACT At the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA) in Bellevue, Washington, June 2025, two inaugural events—the Clinical Anatomy Fireside Chat (CAFC) and the Clinical Anatomy Symposium: Head and Neck 2025 (CAS)—fostered rich dialogue on the evolving role and operational definition of clinical anatomy. Experts from various clinical and anatomical disciplines explored the meaning of clinical anatomy, highlighting the absence of a universal definition despite its frequent use in education and research. Through these interdisciplinary discussions, a consensus emerged: clinical anatomy is not defined solely by the possession of clinical credentials but by the integration of anatomical knowledge and clinical relevance, achieved most effectively through collaboration. Clinical anatomy education and research require different depths of clinical knowledge depending on the audience and objective, and meaningful collaboration can bridge gaps in expertise. The symposium further illustrated that high‐quality clinical anatomy emerges from mutual respect and reciprocal insight between clinicians and anatomists. This article presents a consensus statement developed by AACA representatives and invited speakers, affirming that collaboration is not only foundational to the practice of clinical anatomy but also fundamental to its definition. These conclusions aim to guide future educational models, research strategies, and interdisciplinary partnerships in the field of clinical anatomy.
Stratifying lung adenocarcinoma risk with multi-ancestry polygenic risk scores in East Asian never-smokers
Blechter, Batel , Wang, Xiaoyu , Karsonaki, Christiana, Shi, Jianxin , Shiraishi, Kouya , Choi, Jiyeon , Matsuo, Keitaro , Chen, Tzu‐Yu , Kim, Young Tae , Choudhury, Parichoy Pal , Williams, Jacob , Landi, Maria Teresa , Yin, Zhihua , Zhou, Baosen , Seow, Wei Jie , Song, Lei , Chang, I‐Shou , Chien, Li-Hsin , Wong, Maria Pik , Richardson, Brian Douglas , Li, Shilan , Breeze, Charles E. , Bassig, Bryan A. , Sm, Jason Yy Wong, Chung, Lap Ping, Zhang, Xu‐Chao , Caporaso, Neil E. , Chang, Jiang , Ho, Jcm , Momozawa, Yukihide , Kobayashi, Masashi , Okubo, Kenichi , Honda, Takayuki , Kunitoh, Hideo , Watanabe, Shun-ichi, Hamamoto, Ryuji , Goto, Kōichi , Minamiya, Yoshihiro, Wakai, Kenji , Murakami, Yoshinori , Shimizu, Kimihiro , Suzuki, Hiroyuki , Ohtaki, Yoichi , Tanaka, Kazumi , Wu, Tangchun , Wei, Fusheng, Kim, Yeul Hong , Chang, Gee-Chen , Chen, Kuan‐Yu, Chen, Yuh-Min, Park, Jae Yong , Kweon, Sun-Seog, Gao, Yu‐Tang , Schwartz, Ann G. , Gorlov, Ivan , Wu, Xifeng , Yang, Ping , Lam, Stephen , Bojesen, Stig E. , Ji, Bu‐Tian , Wichmann, H. E., Christiani, D.C., Brennan, Paul , McKay, James , Field, John K. , Shete, Sanjay , Marchand, Loı̈c Le, Liu, Geoffrey , Andrew, Angeline S. , Zienolddiny-Narui, Shan, Grankvist, Kjell , Taylor, Fiona, Aldrich, Melinda C. , Jeon, Hyo‐Sung, Hu, Zhibin , Burdett, Laura, Yeager, Meredith, Hutchinson, Amy , Hicks, Belynda , Liu, Jia , Berndt, Sonja I, Wu, Wei , Wang, Junwen , Choi, Jin Eun , Park, Kyong Hwa , Sung, Sook Whan , Tan, Wen , Sihoe, Alan , Choi, Yi Young, Hung, Hsiao-Han , Vermeulen, Roel , Wu, Junjie , Tsai, Fang-Yu , Chan, John K. C., Li, Jihua , Lin, Hsien-Chih, Liu, Jie , Sawada, Norie , Yamaji, Taiki , Wyatt, Kathleen , Qi, T. Y., Li, Xuelian , Ren, Yangwu , Chao, Ann, Zhu, Junjie , Chen, Chih‐Yi , ScD, Chien-Jen Chen, Stevens, Victoria L. , Fraumeni, Joseph F., Lin, Kuang , Walters, Robin G., Chen, Zhengming, Chatterjee, Nilanjan , Gorlova, Olga Y. , Hsiung, Chao A. , Chanock, Stephen J, Rothman, Nathaniel , Kohno, Takashi , Lan, Qing, Kartsonaki, Christiana , Liu, Geoffrey , Field, John K , Matsuo, Keitaro , Wang, Junwen , Bojesen, Stig E , Grankvist, Kjell , Chen, Chih-Yi , Dai, Juncheng , Hung, Rayjean J. , Chen, Kexin , Shu, Xiao-Ou , Choudhury, Parichoy Pal , Lin, Dongxin , Zheng, Wei , Wang, Jiucun , Hu, Wei , Cai, Qiuyin , Hong, Yun‐Chul , Kim, Hee Nam , Wu, Yi-Long Lung Cancer , Richardson, Brian Douglas , Zhang, Tongwu , Wang, Zhaoming , Kim, Jin Hee , Albanes, Demetrius , Shin, Min‐Ho , Chung, Lap-Ping, Yang, Yang , Zheng, Hong , Dai, Hong , Yatabe, Yasushi , Kim, Young‐Chul , Daigo, Yataro , Kamatani, Yoichiro , Kobayashi, Masashi , Hosgood, Howard Dean , WATANABE, Shun-ichi J. , Miyagi, Yohei , Matsumoto, Shingo , Horinouchi, Hidehito , Tsuboi, Masahiro , Takahashi, Atsushi , Goto, Akiteru , Hara, Megumi , Nishida, Yuichiro , Takeuchi, Kenji , Matsuda, Koichi , Murakami, Yoshinori, Suzuki, Hiroyuki , Saito, Motonobu , Machiela, Mitchell J. , Oh, In‐Jae , Lee, Victor , Su, Wu‐Chou , Seow, Adeline , Kweon, Sun-Seog , Liu, Jianjun , Houlston, Richard S. , Tardón, Adonina , Chen, Chu, Johansson, Mattias , Risch, Angela , Bickeböller, Heike , Rennert, Gad , Arnold, Susanne M. , Davies, Michael P.A. , Kiemeney, Lambertus A. , Cox, Angela , Yuan, Jian-Min , Lazarus, Philip J. , Schabath, Matthew B. , Jiang, Shih Sheng , Chen, Chung–Hsing , Hsiao, Chin‐Fu , Yeager, Meredith , Liu, Jia , Berndt, Sonja I. , Li, Yuqing , Kang, Chang Hyun , Wang, Wen‐Chang , Xu, Jun, Guan, Peng , Yu, Chong‐Jen , Yang, Gong , Park, In Kyu , Cheng, Iona C. , Song, Bao, Wyatt, Kathleen , Ma, Hongxia , Zhu, Meng , Wang, Yifan , Qi, Tianchen, Iwasaki, Motoki , Wu, Guoping , Yang, Pan‐Chyr , Walters, Robin G. , Chatterjee, Nilanjan , Amos, Christopher I. , Shen, Hongbing , Rothman, Nathaniel , Lan, Qing , Zhang, Haoyu

Mayo Clinic

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | September 18, 2025 | Volume: 118 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 231-249

10.1093/jnci/djaf272 | PMID 41032288 Get It

Abstract Background Lung adenocarcinoma in never-smokers is a major public health burden, especially among East Asian women. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are promising for risk stratification but are primarily developed in European-ancestry populations. We aimed to develop and validate single- and multi-ancestry PRSs for East Asian never-smokers to improve lung adenocarcinoma risk prediction. Methods PRSs were developed using genome-wide association study summary statistics from East Asian (8002 cases; 20 782 controls) and European (2058 cases; 5575 controls) populations. Single-ancestry models included a PRS with 25 single nucleotide variants (PRS-25), PRS clumping and thresholding (CT), and LDpred2; multi-ancestry models included LDpred2 plus European PRS-128, PRS-CSx, and clumping and thresholding, super learning, empirical Bayes (CT-SLEB). Performance was evaluated in independent East Asian data from the Female Lung Cancer Consortium and externally validated in the Nanjing Lung Cancer Cohort. We assessed predictive accuracy via area under the curve operating procedure (AUC), with 10-year and (ages 30-80 years) absolute risks estimates. Results The best multi-ancestry PRS, using East Asian and European data via CT-SLEB, outperformed the best East Asian-only (LDpred2; AUC = 0.629, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.618 to 0.641), achieving an AUC of 0.640 (95% CI = 0.629 to 0.653) and odds ratio of 1.71 (95% CI = 1.61 to 1.82) per standard deviation increase. Nanjing Lung Cancer Cohort validation confirmed robust performance (AUC = 0.649, 95% CI = 0.623 to 0.676). The top 20% PRS group had a 3.92-fold higher lung adenocarcinoma risk than the bottom 20%. Further, the top 5% PRS group reached a 6.69% lifetime absolute risk. Notably, this group reached the average population 10-year lung adenocarcinoma risk at age 50 years (0.42%) by age 41 years, 9 years earlier. Conclusions Multi-ancestry PRS approaches enhance lung adenocarcinoma risk stratification in East Asian never-smokers, with consistent external validation, suggesting future clinical utility.
What Is the Appropriate Sample Size in Human Cadaveric Studies? A Quantitative Review of 770 Articles
Obata, Kyoichi , Kato, Tomotaka , Samrid, Rarinthorn , Lesser, Emma R. , Kikuchi, Keishiro, Kim, Chung Yoh , Ono, Kisho , D'Antoni, Anthony, Komune, Noritaka , Kitagawa, Norio , Kim, Hee‐Jin , Loukas, Marios , Watanabe, Koichi , Tubbs, R. Shane , Iwanaga, Joe , Obata, Kyoichi , Kato, Tomotaka , Samrid, Rarinthorn , Lesser, Emma R , Kim, Chung Yoh , Ono, Kisho , Komune, Noritaka , Tabira, Yoko , Hur, Mi-Sun , Kim, Hee-Jin , Loukas, Marios , Watanabe, Koichi , Iwanaga, Joe , Cardona, Juan J. , Kikuchi, Keishiro , D’Antoni, Anthony V. , Tabira, Yoko

Mayo Clinic

Clinical Anatomy | July 22, 2025 | Volume: 39 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 14-19

10.1002/ca.70007 | PMID 40692167 Get It

ABSTRACT Determining an appropriate sample size in human cadaveric studies remains a long‐standing and unresolved challenge. Unlike other basic science fields, anatomical research is constrained by factors such as limited human donor availability, cultural considerations, and ethical restrictions. Despite these limitations, researchers are often asked to justify sample sizes, yet no standardized guidelines currently exist. To quantitatively assess sample sizes in recent human cadaveric studies and propose evidence‐based recommendations for future research, a PubMed search was conducted on February 26, 2024, using the term human cadaveric study . The articles published in 2023 and 2024 were screened, yielding 770 eligible studies. Data extracted included the total sample size, number of classified groups, and journal impact factor (IF). Descriptive statistics, linear regression, and correlation analyses were performed. Continuous variables were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). The median sample size was 11.5 (IQR: 7–20), and 47.9% of studies used 10 or fewer specimens. The median number of classified groups was 3 (IQR: 2–4). Linear regression showed that studies dividing specimens into 2–6 groups often failed to meet the recommended sample size per group based on regression modeling. No significant correlation was found between sample size and journal IF ( r = −0.062, p = 0.115). Most cadaveric studies rely on small sample sizes due to inherent constraints, yet many still attempt a subgroup analysis without sufficient statistical power. Although flexibility is essential in anatomical research, we recommend a minimum total sample size of 10 for basic studies and at least five samples per group for those involving classification. Cadaveric sample size alone does not predict journal impact, highlighting the importance of methodological rigor over quantity.