Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the precision of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopic tumor localization in determining distal surgical margins for leftsided colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, preoperative colonoscopic tattooing, and intraoperative colonoscopic localization for colorectal cancer at our center between July 2020 and March 2024. Clinical data were collected, and the precision of these methods was assessed by measuring the differences between the target resection margin and the actual pathological resection margin. Results: In four patient cases, the indocyanine green tattoo was not visible in the laparoscopic surgical field. The average stained length of the tattoo was 2.89 cm, with a mean distance of 1.18 cm between the low margin of the tattoo and the cancer. The difference between the target distal resection margin by intraoperative colonoscopic localization and the actual pathological resection margin was 0.88 cm. No complications related to the intraoperative colonoscopy were observed. Conclusion Preoperative tattooing showed limitations, such as spreading and occasional invisibility. Intraoperative colonoscopic localization proved to be an effective method for achieving more precise distal surgical margins in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

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.

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.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the precision of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing and intraoperative colonoscopic tumor localization in determining distal surgical margins for leftsided colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, preoperative colonoscopic tattooing, and intraoperative colonoscopic localization for colorectal cancer at our center between July 2020 and March 2024. Clinical data were collected, and the precision of these methods was assessed by measuring the differences between the target resection margin and the actual pathological resection margin. Results: In four patient cases, the indocyanine green tattoo was not visible in the laparoscopic surgical field. The average stained length of the tattoo was 2.89 cm, with a mean distance of 1.18 cm between the low margin of the tattoo and the cancer. The difference between the target distal resection margin by intraoperative colonoscopic localization and the actual pathological resection margin was 0.88 cm. No complications related to the intraoperative colonoscopy were observed. Conclusion Preoperative tattooing showed limitations, such as spreading and occasional invisibility. Intraoperative colonoscopic localization proved to be an effective method for achieving more precise distal surgical margins in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.