Background: and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study. Results: When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22. Conclusions Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.

Background: and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study. Results: When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22. Conclusions Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.

Background: and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study. Results: When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22. Conclusions Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.