1.Study on the Necessity and Methodology for Enhancing Outpatient and Clinical Education in the Department of Radiology
Soo Buem CHO ; Jiwoon SEO ; Young Hwan KIM ; You Me KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Jieun ROH ; Kyung-Hyun DO ; Jung Hwan BAEK ; Hye Shin AHN ; Min Woo LEE ; Seunghyun LEE ; Seung Eun JUNG ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hye Doo JEONG ; Bum Sang CHO ; Hwan Jun JAE ; Seon Hyeong CHOI ; Saebeom HUR ; Su Jin HONG ; Sung Il HWANG ; Auh Whan PARK ; Ji-hoon KIM
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):199-200
2.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
3.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.
4.Clinical practice guidelines for ovarian cancer: an update to the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines
Banghyun LEE ; Suk-Joon CHANG ; Byung Su KWON ; Joo-Hyuk SON ; Myong Cheol LIM ; Yun Hwan KIM ; Shin-Wha LEE ; Chel Hun CHOI ; Kyung Jin EOH ; Jung-Yun LEE ; Yoo-Young LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e69-
We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.
5.Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: an update of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Guidelines
Ji Geun YOO ; Sung Jong LEE ; Eun Ji NAM ; Jae Hong NO ; Jeong Yeol PARK ; Jae Yun SONG ; So-Jin SHIN ; Bo Seong YUN ; Sung Taek PARK ; San-Hui LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM ; Keun Ho LEE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e70-
We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.
6.Survey of the Actual Practices Used for Endoscopic Removal of Colon Polyps in Korea: A Comparison with the Current Guidelines
Jeongseok KIM ; Tae-Geun GWEON ; Min Seob KWAK ; Su Young KIM ; Seong Jung KIM ; Hyun Gun KIM ; Sung Noh HONG ; Eun Sun KIM ; Chang Mo MOON ; Dae Seong MYUNG ; Dong-Hoon BAEK ; Shin Ju OH ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Ji Young LEE ; Yunho JUNG ; Jaeyoung CHUN ; Dong-Hoon YANG ; Eun Ran KIM ; Intestinal Tumor Research Group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases
Gut and Liver 2025;19(1):77-86
Background/Aims:
We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps.
Methods:
From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines.
Results:
Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions.
Conclusions
Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.
7.Cost-effectiveness and other considerations for different research techniques applied in ancient DNA analysis
Jong Ha HONG ; Hisashi FUJITA ; Jaehyup KIM ; Dong Hoon SHIN
Anatomy & Cell Biology 2025;58(1):8-13
Ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis has developed rapidly since it first emerged in the 1980s, becoming an almost indispensable tool in anthropological and archaeological sciences. Earlier aDNA study was based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, with which, unfortunately, modern DNA contamination and other authenticity issues were often incurred. These technical hurdles were soon overcome by application of advancements in the forms of the next generation sequencing (NGS) technique and others. However, since NGS requires money, time, and, in the case of large projects, manpower as well, genetic analysis of some ancient samples considered to be insignificant is commonly delayed or, in the worst cases, neglected entirely. We acknowledge that as a diagnostic tool in aDNA analysis, PCR is less accurate than NGS and more easily affected by modern DNA contamination; but it also has advantages, such as simplicity, time-saving, and greater ease of interpretation, among others. The role of PCR in aDNA analysis, then, should be reconsidered.
8.Cost-effectiveness and other considerations for different research techniques applied in ancient DNA analysis
Jong Ha HONG ; Hisashi FUJITA ; Jaehyup KIM ; Dong Hoon SHIN
Anatomy & Cell Biology 2025;58(1):8-13
Ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis has developed rapidly since it first emerged in the 1980s, becoming an almost indispensable tool in anthropological and archaeological sciences. Earlier aDNA study was based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, with which, unfortunately, modern DNA contamination and other authenticity issues were often incurred. These technical hurdles were soon overcome by application of advancements in the forms of the next generation sequencing (NGS) technique and others. However, since NGS requires money, time, and, in the case of large projects, manpower as well, genetic analysis of some ancient samples considered to be insignificant is commonly delayed or, in the worst cases, neglected entirely. We acknowledge that as a diagnostic tool in aDNA analysis, PCR is less accurate than NGS and more easily affected by modern DNA contamination; but it also has advantages, such as simplicity, time-saving, and greater ease of interpretation, among others. The role of PCR in aDNA analysis, then, should be reconsidered.
9.Survey of the Actual Practices Used for Endoscopic Removal of Colon Polyps in Korea: A Comparison with the Current Guidelines
Jeongseok KIM ; Tae-Geun GWEON ; Min Seob KWAK ; Su Young KIM ; Seong Jung KIM ; Hyun Gun KIM ; Sung Noh HONG ; Eun Sun KIM ; Chang Mo MOON ; Dae Seong MYUNG ; Dong-Hoon BAEK ; Shin Ju OH ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Ji Young LEE ; Yunho JUNG ; Jaeyoung CHUN ; Dong-Hoon YANG ; Eun Ran KIM ; Intestinal Tumor Research Group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases
Gut and Liver 2025;19(1):77-86
Background/Aims:
We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps.
Methods:
From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines.
Results:
Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions.
Conclusions
Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.
10.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

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail