1.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
2.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.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
4.Airborne and surface contamination after rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy using cisplatin
Wongeon JUNG ; Mijin PARK ; Soo Jin PARK ; Eun Ji LEE ; Hee Seung KIM ; Sunju KIM ; Chungsik YOON
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e12-
Objective:
We evaluated the occupational exposure levels of healthcare workers while conducting rotational pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (RIPAC) using cisplatin in a large animal model.
Methods:
We performed RIPAC using cisplatin in 6 female pigs and collected surface and air samples during the procedure. Surface samples were obtained from RIPAC devices and personal protective equipment (PPE) by wiping, and air samples were collected around the operating table.All samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry to detect platinum.
Results:
Among all surface samples (n=44), platinum was detected in 41 samples (93.2%) but not in all air samples (n=16). Among samples collected from RIPAC devices (n=23), minimum and maximum cisplatin levels of 0.08 and 235.09 ng/cm2 were detected, mainly because of direct aerosol exposure in the abdominal cavity. Among samples collected from healthcare workers’ PPE (n=21), 18 samples (85.7%) showed contamination levels below the detection limit, with a maximum of 0.23 ng/cm2 . There was no significant contamination among samples collected from masks, shoes, or gloves.
Conclusion
During the RIPAC procedures, there is a potential risk of dermal exposure, as platinum, a surrogate material for cisplatin, was detected at low concentration levels in some surface samples. However, the respiratory exposure risk was not identified, as platinum was not detected in the airborne samples in this study.
5.The Impact of Clinical Competence and Perception of Clinical Ladder System on Organizational Commitment among Nurses at a General Tertiary Hospital
Yeon Hee SHIN ; Mi Ra LEE ; Sung Nam KIM ; Min Jung KIM ; Ae Jin KIM ; Hyun Ja KIM ; Ji Yoon KANG
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration 2025;31(1):120-131
Purpose:
This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a clinical ladder system in a tertiary hospital by examining how nurses' clinical competence and perceptions of the system affect organizational commitment.
Methods:
The study involved 394 nurses working at a tertiary hospital. Data were collected from May 3 to July 10, 2023, using a self-reported questionnaire. Statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, Scheffé post-hoc test, Pearson correlation, and hierarchical regression analysis, were performed using SPSS 27.0.
Results:
Nurses who applied for promotion to the CN III level and current CN III nurses reported higher clinical competence, perceptions of the clinical ladder system, and organizational commitment than those who did not and those at lower levels (p<.001). A positive correlation existed among all independent variables.Controlling for general characteristics, the effects of clinical competence and perceptions of the clinical ladder system explained 49% of organizational commitment variance (Adjusted R 2 =.49, F=33.43, p<.001).
Conclusion
Greater clinical competence and positive perceptions of the clinical ladder system are likely to enhance organizational commitment, emphasizing its effectiveness in fostering better organizational outcomes.
6.Small Cell Transformation in Pancreatic Metastasis from EGFR-Mutated Lung Adenocarcinoma Following TKI
Wootaek SEO, ; Hyeon-Gi KIM ; Hee-Eon LIM ; Kwangrok JUNG ; Jong-Chan LEE ; Jin-Hyeok HWANG ; Jaihwan KIM
Korean Journal of Pancreas and Biliary Tract 2025;30(2):76-80
Lazertinib is an oral, third-generation, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This case report presents a rare instance of small cell carcinoma transformation in pancreatic metastasis in a patient with EGFR-mutated NSCLC undergoing treatment with lazertinib. Small cell carcinoma transformation indicates a mechanism of treatment resistance, and tissue biopsy is essential to confirm this. When isolated progression of a lesion is suspected during TKI therapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, histological evaluation is necessary to confirm the transformation for the treatment strategy.
7.Training of Radiology Residents in Korea
Jei Hee LEE ; Ji Seon PARK ; A Leum LEE ; Yun-Jung LIM ; Seung Eun JUNG
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(4):291-293
8.Interpretation, Reporting, Imaging-Based Workups, and Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gallbladder Polyps and Gallbladder Wall Thickening: 2025 Recommendations From the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology
Won CHANG ; Sunyoung LEE ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jin Young PARK ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Jeongin YOO ; Seungchul HAN ; So Hyun PARK ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Hyo Jung PARK ; Jeong Hee YOON
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(2):102-134
Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.
9.Radiofrequency Ablation for Recurrent Thyroid Cancers:2025 Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology Guideline
Eun Ju HA ; Min Kyoung LEE ; Jung Hwan BAEK ; Hyun Kyung LIM ; Hye Shin AHN ; Seon Mi BAEK ; Yoon Jung CHOI ; Sae Rom CHUNG ; Ji-hoon KIM ; Jae Ho SHIN ; Ji Ye LEE ; Min Ji HONG ; Hyun Jin KIM ; Leehi JOO ; Soo Yeon HAHN ; So Lyung JUNG ; Chang Yoon LEE ; Jeong Hyun LEE ; Young Hen LEE ; Jeong Seon PARK ; Jung Hee SHIN ; Jin Yong SUNG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Dong Gyu NA ;
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(1):10-28
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.
10.Ultrafast MRI for Pediatric Brain Assessment in Routine Clinical Practice
Hee Eun MOON ; Ji Young HA ; Jae Won CHOI ; Seung Hyun LEE ; Jae-Yeon HWANG ; Young Hun CHOI ; Jung-Eun CHEON ; Yeon Jin CHO
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(1):75-87
Objective:
To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison.
Results:
The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994).
Conclusion
Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail