1.Discordance in Claudin 18.2Expression Between Primary and Metastatic Lesions in Patients With Gastric Cancer
Seung-Myoung SON ; Chang Gok WOO ; Ok-Jun LEE ; Sun Kyung LEE ; Minkwan CHO ; Yong-Pyo LEE ; Hongsik KIM ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Yaewon YANG ; Jihyun KWON ; Ki Hyeong LEE ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Hyo Yung YUN ; Hye Sook HAN
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):303-317
Purpose:
Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features.
Results:
CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues.
Conclusions
CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.
2.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.
3.Discordance in Claudin 18.2Expression Between Primary and Metastatic Lesions in Patients With Gastric Cancer
Seung-Myoung SON ; Chang Gok WOO ; Ok-Jun LEE ; Sun Kyung LEE ; Minkwan CHO ; Yong-Pyo LEE ; Hongsik KIM ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Yaewon YANG ; Jihyun KWON ; Ki Hyeong LEE ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Hyo Yung YUN ; Hye Sook HAN
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):303-317
Purpose:
Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features.
Results:
CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues.
Conclusions
CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.
4.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.
5.Discordance in Claudin 18.2Expression Between Primary and Metastatic Lesions in Patients With Gastric Cancer
Seung-Myoung SON ; Chang Gok WOO ; Ok-Jun LEE ; Sun Kyung LEE ; Minkwan CHO ; Yong-Pyo LEE ; Hongsik KIM ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Yaewon YANG ; Jihyun KWON ; Ki Hyeong LEE ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Hyo Yung YUN ; Hye Sook HAN
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):303-317
Purpose:
Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features.
Results:
CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues.
Conclusions
CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.
6.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.
7.Single-Center Real-World Experience with Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma in the 21st Century
Hyungwoo CHO ; Jung Yong HONG ; Dae Ho LEE ; Shin KIM ; Kyoungmin LEE ; Eun Hee KANG ; Sunjong LEE ; Jung Sun PARK ; Jeong Hoon KIM ; Jin Sook RYU ; Jooryung HUH ; Cheolwon SUH
Korean Journal of Medicine 2024;99(1):37-49
Background/Aims:
In Korea, the incidence of primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the central nervous system (PCNSL) is increasing and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved the survival of younger patients. We explored our real-world experience with PCNSL at Asan Medical Center (AMC).
Methods:
We used the AMC lymphoma registry to collect patient data prospectively. We analyzed 279 patients diagnosed from 2002 until August 2019.
Results:
The PCNSL incidence at AMC increased progressively and comprised 7.4-8.9% of new non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients annually during the most recent 4 years. The median age was 60 years (range, 17-85) and males comprised 55%. Patients under 65 years of age (n = 183) had no significant differences in characteristics compared to those aged 65 years or over, with the exception of less occipital lobe involvement and lower beta-2 microglobulin levels. Rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, and vincristine (R-MPV) combination induction had the best overall response, of 95%. The median overall survival was 3.8 years with 5- and 10-year survival rates of 41.5% and 30.2%, respectively. Survival was better in younger patients and those treated with ASCT. Thiotepa, busulfan, and cytoxan (TBC) conditioning chemotherapy had better survival than other combinations. The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score systems were valid in this cohort. Age and performance status were independent prognostic factors. Exclusive extra-central nervous system failure occurred in six patients (5.6%) among 107 failures.
Conclusions
The incidence of PCNSL is rising. R-MPV induction therapy followed by ASCT with TBC has improved the survival of young, fit PCNSL patients.
8.Single-Center Real-World Experience with Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma in the 21st Century
Hyungwoo CHO ; Jung Yong HONG ; Dae Ho LEE ; Shin KIM ; Kyoungmin LEE ; Eun Hee KANG ; Sunjong LEE ; Jung Sun PARK ; Jeong Hoon KIM ; Jin Sook RYU ; Jooryung HUH ; Cheolwon SUH
Korean Journal of Medicine 2024;99(1):37-49
Background/Aims:
In Korea, the incidence of primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the central nervous system (PCNSL) is increasing and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved the survival of younger patients. We explored our real-world experience with PCNSL at Asan Medical Center (AMC).
Methods:
We used the AMC lymphoma registry to collect patient data prospectively. We analyzed 279 patients diagnosed from 2002 until August 2019.
Results:
The PCNSL incidence at AMC increased progressively and comprised 7.4-8.9% of new non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients annually during the most recent 4 years. The median age was 60 years (range, 17-85) and males comprised 55%. Patients under 65 years of age (n = 183) had no significant differences in characteristics compared to those aged 65 years or over, with the exception of less occipital lobe involvement and lower beta-2 microglobulin levels. Rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, and vincristine (R-MPV) combination induction had the best overall response, of 95%. The median overall survival was 3.8 years with 5- and 10-year survival rates of 41.5% and 30.2%, respectively. Survival was better in younger patients and those treated with ASCT. Thiotepa, busulfan, and cytoxan (TBC) conditioning chemotherapy had better survival than other combinations. The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score systems were valid in this cohort. Age and performance status were independent prognostic factors. Exclusive extra-central nervous system failure occurred in six patients (5.6%) among 107 failures.
Conclusions
The incidence of PCNSL is rising. R-MPV induction therapy followed by ASCT with TBC has improved the survival of young, fit PCNSL patients.
9.Coadministration of 6-Shogaol and Levodopa Alleviates Parkinson’s Disease-Related Pathology in Mice
Jin Hee KIM ; Jin Se KIM ; In Gyoung JU ; Eugene HUH ; Yujin CHOI ; Seungmin LEE ; Jun-Young CHO ; Boyoung Y. PARK ; Myung Sook OH
Biomolecules & Therapeutics 2024;32(5):523-530
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disease caused by the death of dopaminergic neurons in the nigrostriatal pathway, leading to motor and non-motor dysfunctions, such as depression, olfactory dysfunction, and memory impairment. Although levodopa (L-dopa) has been the gold standard PD treatment for decades, it only relieves motor symptoms and has no effect on non-motor symptoms or disease progression. Prior studies have reported that 6-shogaol, the active ingredient in ginger, exerts a protective effect on dopaminergic neurons by suppressing neuroinflammation in PD mice. This study investigated whether cotreatment with 6-shogaol and L-dopa could attenuate both motor and non-motor symptoms and dopaminergic neuronal damage.Both 6-shogaol (20 mg/kg) and L-dopa (80 mg/kg) were orally administered to 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine/probenecid-induced PD model mice for 26 days. The experimental results showed that L-dopa alleviated motor symptoms, but had no significant effect on non-motor symptoms, loss of dopaminergic neuron, or neuroinflammation. However, when mice were treated with 6-shogaol alone or in combination with L-dopa, an amelioration in both motor and non-motor symptoms such as depressionlike behavior, olfactory dysfunction and memory impairment was observed. Moreover, 6-shogaol-only or co-treatment of 6-shogaol with L-dopa protected dopaminergic neurons in the striatum and reduced neuroinflammation in the striatum and substantia nigra.Overall, these results suggest that 6-shogaol can effectively complement L-dopa by improving non-motor dysfunction and restoring dopaminergic neurons via suppressing neuroinflammation.
10.Lazertinib versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment for EGFR-mutated Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: LASER301 Korean Subset
Ki Hyeong LEE ; Byoung Chul CHO ; Myung-Ju AHN ; Yun-Gyoo LEE ; Youngjoo LEE ; Jong-Seok LEE ; Joo-Hang KIM ; Young Joo MIN ; Gyeong-Won LEE ; Sung Sook LEE ; Kyung-Hee LEE ; Yoon Ho KO ; Byoung Yong SHIM ; Sang-We KIM ; Sang Won SHIN ; Jin-Hyuk CHOI ; Dong-Wan KIM ; Eun Kyung CHO ; Keon Uk PARK ; Jin-Soo KIM ; Sang Hoon CHUN ; Jangyoung WANG ; SeokYoung CHOI ; Jin Hyoung KANG
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(1):48-60
Purpose:
This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Materials and Methods:
Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).
Results:
In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib.
Conclusion
Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail