1.Long-Term Incidence of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Ischemic Stroke
Jun Yup KIM ; Beom Joon KIM ; Jihoon KANG ; Do Yeon KIM ; Moon-Ku HAN ; Seong-Eun KIM ; Heeyoung LEE ; Jong-Moo PARK ; Kyusik KANG ; Soo Joo LEE ; Jae Guk KIM ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Dae-Hyun KIM ; Tai Hwan PARK ; Kyungbok LEE ; Hong-Kyun PARK ; Yong-Jin CHO ; Keun-Sik HONG ; Kang-Ho CHOI ; Joon-Tae KIM ; Dong-Eog KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Mi-Sun OH ; Kyung-Ho YU ; Byung-Chul LEE ; Kwang-Yeol PARK ; Ji Sung LEE ; Sujung JANG ; Jae Eun CHAE ; Juneyoung LEE ; Min-Surk KYE ; Philip B. GORELICK ; Hee-Joon BAE ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(1):102-112
Background:
and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes.
Methods:
We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data.
Results:
Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4.
Conclusion
Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.
2.Posterior Lumbar Element Enforcement by Decompression Alone with Interspinous Fixation without Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Hyun-Woong PARK ; Moon-Soo HAN ; Ji-Ho JUNG ; Jong-Hwan HONG ; Shin-Seok LEE ; Jung-Kil LEE
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2025;68(2):150-158
Objective:
: In degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, interbody fusion surgery (IFS) has long been recommended as the gold standard of surgical management. However, IFS is less recommended for high-risk patients such as the elderly because it involves extensive surgery, with a long operation time and high volumes of blood loss, which lead to marked perioperative morbidity. We report an alternative primary and salvage treatment technique for high-risk lumbar spondylolisthesis through posterior lumbar element reinforcement using interspinous fixation and decompression alone without interbody fusion.
Methods:
: Plain radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging, taken at different intervals, were used to measure local disc height (DH), vertebral body slippage (BS), and segmental motion angle (SMA). A Visual analogue scale and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were applied pre-operation and at the last follow-up.
Results:
: The local SMA decreased significantly by 3.46°±3.07°, from 10.61°±3.42° preoperatively to 7.15±3.70 at the last follow-up (p<0.001). The DH decreased from 8.61±2.88 mm preoperatively to 8.41±2.48 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.074). The BS decreased from 3.49±4.29 mm preoperatively to 3.41±4.91 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.092). None of the patients reported worsening pain or an increased ODI after surgery, and there were no surgery-related complications.
Conclusion
: Posterior lumbar element reinforcement by decompression alone with SPIRE™ fixation is an alternative primary and salvage treatment option for select patients with spondylolisthesis.
3.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
4.Study Design and Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Enavogliflozin to Evaluate Cardiorenal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (ENVELOP)
Nam Hoon KIM ; Soo LIM ; In-Kyung JEONG ; Eun-Jung RHEE ; Jun Sung MOON ; Ohk-Hyun RYU ; Hyuk-Sang KWON ; Jong Chul WON ; Sang Soo KIM ; Sang Yong KIM ; Bon Jeong KU ; Heung Yong JIN ; Sin Gon KIM ; Bong-Soo CHA ;
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2025;49(2):225-234
Background:
The novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor enavogliflozin effectively lowers glycosylated hemoglobin levels and body weights without the increased risk of serious adverse events; however, the long-term clinical benefits of enavogliflozin in terms of cardiovascular and renal outcomes have not been investigated.
Methods:
This study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥19 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease. A total of 2,862 participants will be randomly assigned to receive either enavogliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors with proven cardiorenal benefits, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. The primary endpoint is the time to the first occurrence of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular or renal events (Clinical Research Information Service registration number: KCT0009243).
Conclusion
This trial will determine whether enavogliflozin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in terms of cardiorenal outcomes in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular risk factors. This study will elucidate the role of enavogliflozin in preventing vascular complications in patients with T2DM.
5.Harnessing Institutionally Developed Clinical Targeted Sequencing to Improve Patient Survival in Breast Cancer: A Seven-Year Experience
Jiwon KOH ; Jinyong KIM ; Go-Un WOO ; Hanbaek YI ; So Yean KWON ; Jeongmin SEO ; Jeong Mo BAE ; Jung Ho KIM ; Jae Kyung WON ; Han Suk RYU ; Yoon Kyung JEON ; Dae-Won LEE ; Miso KIM ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Kyung-Hun LEE ; Tae-You KIM ; Jee-Soo LEE ; Moon-Woo SEONG ; Sheehyun KIM ; Sungyoung LEE ; Hongseok YUN ; Myung Geun SONG ; Jaeyong CHOI ; Jong-Il KIM ; Seock-Ah IM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2025;57(2):443-456
Purpose:
Considering the high disease burden and unique features of Asian patients with breast cancer (BC), it is essential to have a comprehensive view of genetic characteristics in this population. An institutional targeted sequencing platform was developed through the Korea Research-Driven Hospitals project and was incorporated into clinical practice. This study explores the use of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and its outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic BC in the real world.
Materials and Methods:
We reviewed the results of NGS tests administered to BC patients using a customized sequencing platform—FiRST Cancer Panel (FCP)—over 7 years. We systematically described clinical translation of FCP for precise diagnostics, personalized therapeutic strategies, and unraveling disease pathogenesis.
Results:
NGS tests were conducted on 548 samples from 522 patients with BC. Ninety-seven point six percentage of tested samples harbored at least one pathogenic alteration. The common alterations included mutations in TP53 (56.2%), PIK3CA (31.2%), GATA3 (13.8%), BRCA2 (10.2%), and amplifications of CCND1 (10.8%), FGF19 (10.0%), and ERBB2 (9.5%). NGS analysis of ERBB2 amplification correlated well with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. RNA panel analyses found potentially actionable and prognostic fusion genes. FCP effectively screened for potentially germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutation. Ten point three percent of BC patients received matched therapy guided by NGS, resulting in a significant overall survival advantage (p=0.022), especially for metastatic BCs.
Conclusion
Clinical NGS provided multifaceted benefits, deepening our understanding of the disease, improving diagnostic precision, and paving the way for targeted therapies. The concrete advantages of FCP highlight the importance of multi-gene testing for BC, especially for metastatic conditions.
6.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
7.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
8.Posterior Lumbar Element Enforcement by Decompression Alone with Interspinous Fixation without Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Hyun-Woong PARK ; Moon-Soo HAN ; Ji-Ho JUNG ; Jong-Hwan HONG ; Shin-Seok LEE ; Jung-Kil LEE
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2025;68(2):150-158
Objective:
: In degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, interbody fusion surgery (IFS) has long been recommended as the gold standard of surgical management. However, IFS is less recommended for high-risk patients such as the elderly because it involves extensive surgery, with a long operation time and high volumes of blood loss, which lead to marked perioperative morbidity. We report an alternative primary and salvage treatment technique for high-risk lumbar spondylolisthesis through posterior lumbar element reinforcement using interspinous fixation and decompression alone without interbody fusion.
Methods:
: Plain radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging, taken at different intervals, were used to measure local disc height (DH), vertebral body slippage (BS), and segmental motion angle (SMA). A Visual analogue scale and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were applied pre-operation and at the last follow-up.
Results:
: The local SMA decreased significantly by 3.46°±3.07°, from 10.61°±3.42° preoperatively to 7.15±3.70 at the last follow-up (p<0.001). The DH decreased from 8.61±2.88 mm preoperatively to 8.41±2.48 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.074). The BS decreased from 3.49±4.29 mm preoperatively to 3.41±4.91 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.092). None of the patients reported worsening pain or an increased ODI after surgery, and there were no surgery-related complications.
Conclusion
: Posterior lumbar element reinforcement by decompression alone with SPIRE™ fixation is an alternative primary and salvage treatment option for select patients with spondylolisthesis.
9.Pain Lateralization in Cluster Headache and Associated Clinical Factors
Soohyun CHO ; Mi Ji LEE ; Min Kyung CHU ; Jeong Wook PARK ; Heui-Soo MOON ; Pil-Wook CHUNG ; Jong-Hee SOHN ; Byung-Su KIM ; Daeyoung KIM ; Kyungmi OH ; Byung-Kun KIM ; Soo-Jin CHO
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):220-229
Background:
and Purpose The pain lateralization in cluster headache (CH) may be related to the asymmetry in the functions of the brain hemispheres. The right-sided dominance of pain in CH has been found inconsistently across studies, and so we aimed to characterize this and identify the factors influencing pain lateralization during current and previous bouts.
Methods:
This study enrolled 227 patients from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry between October 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the side of pain during current and previous bouts, demographic features, and clinical characteristics, including handedness. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the side of pain.
Results:
The 227 patients with CH included 131 (57.7%) with right-sided pain and 86 (37.9%) with left-sided pain during the current bout (p<0.001). The 189 patients with previous bouts of CH included 86.8% who consistently reported the same side of pain throughout multiple bouts (side-locked pain), with a higher prevalence of pain on the right than the left side (55.0% vs. 31.7%, p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=1.045, p=0.031) and shorter CH attacks (OR=0.992, p=0.017) were associated with left-side-locked pain. However, handedness was not associated with the lateralization of leftside-locked pain.
Conclusions
This study has confirmed the predominance of right-sided pain throughout multiple CH bouts. We found that higher age at diagnosis and shorter CH attacks were associated with left-side-locked pain, suggesting that certain clinical factors are associated with the pain laterality. However, the underlying mechanisms linking these factors to lateralized pain remain unclear and therefore require further investigation.
10.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail