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.Contemporary diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease in Korea: a nationwide hospital‑based registry study
Hyung Yoon KIM ; Hee Jeong LEE ; In‑Cheol KIM ; Jung‑Woo SON ; Jun‑Bean PARK ; Sahmin LEE ; Eun Kyoung KIM ; Seong‑Mi PARK ; Woo‑Baek CHUNG ; Jung Sun CHO ; Jin‑Sun PARK ; Jeong‑Sook SEO ; Sun Hwa LEE ; Byung Joo SUN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Hyungseop KIM ; Kye Hun KIM ; Duk‑Hyun KANG ; Jong‑Won HA ;
Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2024;32(1):37-
Background:
This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea.
Methods:
A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality.
Results:
Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037).
Conclusions
This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.
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.Caregiver Burden of Patients With Huntington’s Disease in South Korea
Chan Young LEE ; Chaewon SHIN ; Yun Su HWANG ; Eungseok OH ; Manho KIM ; Hyun Sook KIM ; Sun Ju CHUNG ; Young Hee SUNG ; Won Tae YOON ; Jin Whan CHO ; Jae-Hyeok LEE ; Han-Joon KIM ; Hee Jin CHANG ; Beomseok JEON ; Kyung Ah WOO ; Seong-Beom KOH ; Kyum-Yil KWON ; Jangsup MOON ; Young Eun KIM ; Jee-Young LEE
Journal of Movement Disorders 2024;17(1):30-37
Objective:
This is the first prospective cohort study of Huntington’s disease (HD) in Korea. This study aimed to investigate the caregiver burden in relation to the characteristics of patients and caregivers.
Methods:
From August 2020 to February 2022, we enrolled patients with HD from 13 university hospitals in Korea. We used the 12-item Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12) to evaluate the caregiver burden. We evaluated the clinical associations of the ZBI-12 scores by linear regression analysis and investigated the differences between the low- and high-burden groups.
Results:
Sixty-five patients with HD and 45 caregivers were enrolled in this cohort study. The average age at onset of motor symptoms was 49.3 ± 12.3 years, with an average cytosine-adenine-guanine (CAG)n of 42.9 ± 4.0 (38–65). The median ZBI-12 score among our caregivers was 17.6 ± 14.2. A higher caregiver burden was associated with a more severe Shoulson–Fahn stage (p = 0.038) of the patients. A higher ZBI-12 score was also associated with lower independence scale (B = -0.154, p = 0.006) and functional capacity (B = -1.082, p = 0.002) scores of patients. The caregiving duration was longer in the high- than in the low-burden group. Caregivers’ demographics, blood relation, and marital and social status did not affect the burden significantly.
Conclusion
HD patients’ neurological status exerts an enormous impact on the caregiver burden regardless of the demographic or social status of the caregiver. This study emphasizes the need to establish an optimal support system for families dealing with HD in Korea. A future longitudinal analysis could help us understand how disease progression aggravates the caregiver burden throughout the entire disease course.
10.Zinc dietary reference intakes and factorial analysis
Young-Eun CHO ; Mi-Kyung LEE ; Jae-Hee KWON ; In-Sook KWUN
Journal of Nutrition and Health 2024;57(4):365-375
Purpose:
Zinc is involved in regulating homeostasis and metabolism in the body, and understanding these processes is important for estimating intake requirements. This review aimed to assist in setting the standards for Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans (KDRIs, 2025) for zinc by examining specific factors associated with role of zinc in the body and using the factorial analysis method.
Methods:
We reviewed the zinc-specific factors that should be considered when setting the required zinc intake to maintain zinc homeostasis in the body and used the factorial analysis method for estimating zinc requirements for different population groups.
Results
Factorial analysis involves estimating the required intake based on various factors that affect zinc metabolism and requirements. The key components and steps involved in determining the zinc dietary reference intake (DRI), particularly the estimated average requirement (EAR), include: 1) Estimating basal requirements, which involves calculating the amount of zinc needed to replace natural losses through the intestinal (feces) and nonintestinal (urine, skin and other body secretions) routes, 2) Accounting for the various biomarkers related to metabolic functions of zinc, 3) Considering physiological requirements for zinc, such as those for growth, development, pregnancy, and lactation since zinc is essential for DNA and protein synthesis, and 4) Estimating the dietary absorption rate of zinc. Conclusion: The factorial analysis for zinc requirement is based on scientific evidence and is tailored to meet the requirements of different population groups, ensuring optimal health and preventing deficiency. It includes considerations of physiological needs, dietary absorption, and population-specific characteristics.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail