1.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.
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.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.Systemic Inflammatory Response Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Can Affect Oncologic Outcomes in MSI-H/dMMR Rectal Cancer
Hyukjin CHOI ; Jin Ho BAEK ; An Na SEO ; Su Yeon PARK ; Hye Jin KIM ; Jun Seok PARK ; Gyu Seog CHOI ; Jong Gwang KIM ; Byung Woog KANG
Chonnam Medical Journal 2024;60(2):105-112
Systemic inflammatory response (SIR) is a crucial determinant of disease progression and survival in patients with colorectal cancer. This study investigated the prognostic relevance of changes in the platelet count on survival and the predictive value of changes in the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) on the pathological tumor response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) rectal cancer. From 2011 to 2022, data of 46 consecutive patients with MSI-H rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative CRT followed by curative surgery at Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital (Daegu, South Korea) were retrospectively analyzed. A 235 cut-off value was used to define whether PLR was high or low. Any change in the PLR or NLR was calculated on the basis of subtracting the pre-CRT PLR or NLR from the post-CRT values. Both pre-CRT and post-CRT values of the NLR and PLR were not significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Simple logistic regression analysis showed that a change in the PLR following CRT was not significantly associated with survival outcomes; however, patients who maintained a high change in the PLR following CRT showed significantly better pathologic T-stage. No statistically significant association was noted between changes in the platelet count and clinical outcomes of patients. The results suggested that changes in the PLR following CRT are associated with pathologic T-stage of the group. However, the SIR markers showed no prognostic values on the survival outcomes of the patients with MSI-H/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).
5.New treatment for antibody-mediated rejection: interleukin-6 inhibitors
Byung Hwa PARK ; Ye Na KIM ; Ho Sik SHIN
Clinical Transplantation and Research 2024;38(1):1-6
Following kidney transplantation, antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) occurs when the antibodies of the immune system attack the transplanted organ, leading to damage of the kidney tissue. De novo human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies (HLADSAs) play a key role in AMR. Current therapeutic approaches include intravenous immunoglobulin, anti-CD20 antibodies, and plasmapheresis. In cases resistant to treatment, proteasome inhibitors and C5 inhibitors may be employed. Nevertheless, a pressing need exists for new medications to improve transplant survival and reduce complications. In the context of AMR, interleukin (IL)-6 is instrumental in the development and maturation of B cells into plasma cells, which then produce HLA-DSAs targeting the allograft. IL-6 inhibitors are currently under investigation and show promise due to the essential role of IL-6 in the immune response; however, additional research is necessary.
6.Kidney transplantation in the elderly
Byung Hwa PARK ; Song Yi KIL ; Ye Na KIM ; Ho Sik SHIN ; Yeonsoon JUNG ; Hark RIM
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine 2024;39(6):875-881
Interest in kidney transplant studies in the elderly population is increasing as more research has been conducted on the immune system. With this review, we hope to encourage the need for research on kidney transplantation in the elderly.
7.Comparative Analysis of Clinical Features and Serological Findings of Herpes Zoster and Zoster Meningitis
Chan Ho NA ; Byung Hoon JEONG ; Min Sung KIM ; Bong Seok SHIN ; Hoon CHOI
Korean Journal of Dermatology 2023;61(10):612-619
Background:
Herpes zoster is a viral infection caused by reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). VZV can also cause infection of the central nervous system, such as meningitis. There are relatively few studies investigating the clinical features and serological findings differentiating herpes zoster and zoster meningitis.
Objective:
To compare clinical features and serological findings of zoster meningitis and herpes zoster without meningitis.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 473 patients with herpes zoster or zoster meningitis admitted in our hospital between May 2017 to June 2022. We investigated the patients’ underlying comorbidities, clinical features and laboratory findings including fever, headache, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, meningeal irritation sign, dermatomal distribution, skin inflammation severity, initial pain numeric rating scale (NRS) at the initial visit, serum VZV immunoglobulin M (IgM) and G (IgG) titer, serum VZV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis.
Results:
Overall, 410 patients with herpes zoster and 63 patients with zoster meningitis were included. No significant differences in age, serum VZV IgM, VZV PCR and skin inflammation severity were found between groups. Initial pain NRS was higher significantly in zoster meningitis group (herpes zoster group: 4.8±2.1, zoster meningitis group: 5.7±2.2) (p=0.003) and mean VZV IgG was lower in zoster meningitis group (herpes zoster group: 2,506±1,345.8, zoster meningitis group: 1,712±1,796.3 mIU/mL) (p=0.028).
Conclusion
No typical symptoms of meningitis are found in case of trigeminal nerve involvement. Moreover, if there is severe initial pain or low levels of serum VZV IgG are detected, further evaluations such as CSF tapping may be necessary to differentiate zoster meningitis from herpes zoster.
8.The Role of Adjuvant Therapy Following Surgical Resection of Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Multi-Center Study
Seong Yong PARK ; Samina PARK ; Geun Dong LEE ; Hong Kwan KIM ; Sehoon CHOI ; Hyeong Ryul KIM ; Yong-Hee KIM ; Dong Kwan KIM ; Seung-Il PARK ; Tae Hee HONG ; Yong Soo CHOI ; Jhingook KIM ; Jong Ho CHO ; Young Mog SHIM ; Jae Ill ZO ; Kwon Joong NA ; In Kyu PARK ; Chang Hyun KANG ; Young-Tae KIM ; Byung Jo PARK ; Chang Young LEE ; Jin Gu LEE ; Dae Joon KIM ; Hyo Chae PAIK
Cancer Research and Treatment 2023;55(1):94-102
Purpose:
This multi-center, retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the long-term survival in patients who underwent surgical resection for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and to identify the benefit of adjuvant therapy following surgery.
Materials and Methods:
The data of 213 patients who underwent surgical resection for SCLC at four institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy or an incomplete resection were excluded.
Results:
The mean patient age was 65.29±8.93 years, and 184 patients (86.4%) were male. Lobectomies and pneumonectomies were performed in 173 patients (81.2%), and 198 (93%) underwent systematic mediastinal lymph node dissections. Overall, 170 patients (79.8%) underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 42 (19.7%) underwent radiotherapy to the mediastinum, and 23 (10.8%) underwent prophylactic cranial irradiation. The median follow-up period was 31.08 months (interquartile range, 13.79 to 64.52 months). The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival were 53.4% and 46.9%, respectively. The 5-year OS significantly improved after adjuvant chemotherapy in all patients (57.4% vs. 40.3%, p=0.007), and the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was significant in patients with negative node pathology (70.8% vs. 39.7%, p=0.004). Adjuvant radiotherapy did not affect the 5-year OS (54.6% vs. 48.5%, p=0.458). Age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.032; p=0.017), node metastasis (HR, 2.190; p < 0.001), and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 0.558; p=0.019) were associated with OS.
Conclusion
Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgical resection in patients with SCLC improved the OS, though adjuvant radiotherapy to the mediastinum did not improve the survival or decrease the locoregional recurrence rate.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail