Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Background: Although symptomatic local recurrence (SLR) of spinal metastasis is relatively common after aggressive surgery, there have been few studies on SLR according to the extent of tumor removal. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of SLR after surgery in spinal metastasis and analyze the risk factors of SLR. Methods: This study included patients with spinal metastasis to all 3 vertebral columns. SLR was defined as the occurrence of new symptoms, confirmed by radiologic regrowth of tumor. The extent of tumor removal was classified into 3 types (corpectomy, separation surgery, and only posterior column removal). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the SLR rate after surgery.The presumed risk factors of SLR were evaluated using log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. Results: This study included 102 patients with a mean follow-up period of 17.7 months (range, 3–84 months). After surgical treatment, SLR was confirmed in 35 patients (34.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that the incidence of SLR was 4.4% at 6 months, 21.5% at 12 months, 34.0% at 18 months, and 42.7% at 24 months. In the univariate analysis, the primary malignancy site, number of vertebral metastases, and surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy were significant (p = 0.042, p = 0.048, and p = 0.008, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the extent of tumor removal (p = 0.536). In the multivariate analysis, the significant risk factors of SLR included only previous radiation therapy (p = 0.012). The risk of SLR was 2.8 times higher in patients who received surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy than in those without it. Conclusions The SLR of spinal metastasis was predicted in 21.5% of patients at 1 year after surgical treatment. The extent of tumor removal did not seem to affect SLR. Surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy was confirmed as the only substantial risk factor. Therefore, the tumor's response to preoperative radiation therapy is the most important factor in determining SLR.

Background: Although symptomatic local recurrence (SLR) of spinal metastasis is relatively common after aggressive surgery, there have been few studies on SLR according to the extent of tumor removal. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of SLR after surgery in spinal metastasis and analyze the risk factors of SLR. Methods: This study included patients with spinal metastasis to all 3 vertebral columns. SLR was defined as the occurrence of new symptoms, confirmed by radiologic regrowth of tumor. The extent of tumor removal was classified into 3 types (corpectomy, separation surgery, and only posterior column removal). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the SLR rate after surgery.The presumed risk factors of SLR were evaluated using log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. Results: This study included 102 patients with a mean follow-up period of 17.7 months (range, 3–84 months). After surgical treatment, SLR was confirmed in 35 patients (34.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that the incidence of SLR was 4.4% at 6 months, 21.5% at 12 months, 34.0% at 18 months, and 42.7% at 24 months. In the univariate analysis, the primary malignancy site, number of vertebral metastases, and surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy were significant (p = 0.042, p = 0.048, and p = 0.008, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the extent of tumor removal (p = 0.536). In the multivariate analysis, the significant risk factors of SLR included only previous radiation therapy (p = 0.012). The risk of SLR was 2.8 times higher in patients who received surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy than in those without it. Conclusions The SLR of spinal metastasis was predicted in 21.5% of patients at 1 year after surgical treatment. The extent of tumor removal did not seem to affect SLR. Surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy was confirmed as the only substantial risk factor. Therefore, the tumor's response to preoperative radiation therapy is the most important factor in determining SLR.

Background: Although symptomatic local recurrence (SLR) of spinal metastasis is relatively common after aggressive surgery, there have been few studies on SLR according to the extent of tumor removal. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of SLR after surgery in spinal metastasis and analyze the risk factors of SLR. Methods: This study included patients with spinal metastasis to all 3 vertebral columns. SLR was defined as the occurrence of new symptoms, confirmed by radiologic regrowth of tumor. The extent of tumor removal was classified into 3 types (corpectomy, separation surgery, and only posterior column removal). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the SLR rate after surgery.The presumed risk factors of SLR were evaluated using log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. Results: This study included 102 patients with a mean follow-up period of 17.7 months (range, 3–84 months). After surgical treatment, SLR was confirmed in 35 patients (34.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that the incidence of SLR was 4.4% at 6 months, 21.5% at 12 months, 34.0% at 18 months, and 42.7% at 24 months. In the univariate analysis, the primary malignancy site, number of vertebral metastases, and surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy were significant (p = 0.042, p = 0.048, and p = 0.008, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the extent of tumor removal (p = 0.536). In the multivariate analysis, the significant risk factors of SLR included only previous radiation therapy (p = 0.012). The risk of SLR was 2.8 times higher in patients who received surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy than in those without it. Conclusions The SLR of spinal metastasis was predicted in 21.5% of patients at 1 year after surgical treatment. The extent of tumor removal did not seem to affect SLR. Surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy was confirmed as the only substantial risk factor. Therefore, the tumor's response to preoperative radiation therapy is the most important factor in determining SLR.

Background: Although symptomatic local recurrence (SLR) of spinal metastasis is relatively common after aggressive surgery, there have been few studies on SLR according to the extent of tumor removal. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of SLR after surgery in spinal metastasis and analyze the risk factors of SLR. Methods: This study included patients with spinal metastasis to all 3 vertebral columns. SLR was defined as the occurrence of new symptoms, confirmed by radiologic regrowth of tumor. The extent of tumor removal was classified into 3 types (corpectomy, separation surgery, and only posterior column removal). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the SLR rate after surgery.The presumed risk factors of SLR were evaluated using log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. Results: This study included 102 patients with a mean follow-up period of 17.7 months (range, 3–84 months). After surgical treatment, SLR was confirmed in 35 patients (34.3%). Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that the incidence of SLR was 4.4% at 6 months, 21.5% at 12 months, 34.0% at 18 months, and 42.7% at 24 months. In the univariate analysis, the primary malignancy site, number of vertebral metastases, and surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy were significant (p = 0.042, p = 0.048, and p = 0.008, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the extent of tumor removal (p = 0.536). In the multivariate analysis, the significant risk factors of SLR included only previous radiation therapy (p = 0.012). The risk of SLR was 2.8 times higher in patients who received surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy than in those without it. Conclusions The SLR of spinal metastasis was predicted in 21.5% of patients at 1 year after surgical treatment. The extent of tumor removal did not seem to affect SLR. Surgery for progressed tumor after previous radiation therapy was confirmed as the only substantial risk factor. Therefore, the tumor's response to preoperative radiation therapy is the most important factor in determining SLR.

Objectives: Sepsis is a leading global cause of mortality, and predicting its outcomes is vital for improving patient care. This study explored the capabilities of ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art natural language processing model, in predicting in-hospital mortality for sepsis patients. Methods: This study utilized data from the Korean Sepsis Alliance (KSA) database, collected between 2019 and 2021, focusing on adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients and aiming to determine whether ChatGPT could predict all-cause mortality after ICU admission at 7 and 30 days. Structured prompts enabled ChatGPT to engage in in-context learning, with the number of patient examples varying from zero to six. The predictive capabilities of ChatGPT-3.5-turbo and ChatGPT-4 were then compared against a gradient boosting model (GBM) using various performance metrics. Results: From the KSA database, 4,786 patients formed the 7-day mortality prediction dataset, of whom 718 died, and 4,025 patients formed the 30-day dataset, with 1,368 deaths. Age and clinical markers (e.g., Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and lactic acid levels) showed significant differences between survivors and non-survivors in both datasets. For 7-day mortality predictions, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.70–0.83 for GPT-4, 0.51–0.70 for GPT-3.5, and 0.79 for GBM. The AUROC for 30-day mortality was 0.51–0.59 for GPT-4, 0.47–0.57 for GPT-3.5, and 0.76 for GBM. Zero-shot predictions using GPT-4 for mortality from ICU admission to day 30 showed AUROCs from the mid-0.60s to 0.75 for GPT-4 and mainly from 0.47 to 0.63 for GPT-3.5. Conclusions GPT-4 demonstrated potential in predicting short-term in-hospital mortality, although its performance varied across different evaluation metrics.

Purpose: Despite numerous studies on the optimal treatments for oligometastatic disease (OMD), there is no established interdisciplinary consensus on its diagnosis or classification. This survey-based study aimed to analyze the differential opinions of colorectal surgeons and radiation oncologists regarding the definition and treatment of OMD from the colorectal primary. Materials and Methods: A total of 141 participants were included in this study, consisting of 63 radiation oncologists (44.7%) and 78 colorectal surgeons (55.3%). The survey consisted of 19 questions related to OMD, and the responses were analyzed using the chi-square test to determine statistical differences between the specialties. Results: The radiation oncologists chose “bone” more frequently compared to the colorectal surgeons (19.2% vs. 36.5%, p=0.022), while colorectal surgeons favored “peritoneal seeding” (26.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.009). Regarding the number of metastatic tumors, 48.3% of colorectal surgeons responded that “irrelevant, if all metastatic lesions are amendable to local therapy”, while only 21.8% of radiation oncologist chose same answer. When asked about molecular diagnosis, most surgeons (74.8%) said it was important, but only 35.8% of radiation oncologists agreed. Conclusion This study demonstrates that although radiation oncologists and colorectal surgeons agreed on a majority of aspects such as diagnostic imaging, biomarker, systemic therapy, and optimal timing of OMD, they also had quite different perspectives on several aspects of OMD. Understanding these differences is crucial to achieving multidisciplinary consensus on the definition and optimal management of OMD.

Background/Aims: We aimed to analyze the efficacy of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) by the disease course of heart failure (HF). Methods: We evaluated 227 patients with HF in a multi-center retrospective cohort that included those with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% undergoing ARNI treatment. The patients were divided into patients with newly diagnosed HF with ARNI treatment initiated within 6 months of diagnosis (de novo HF group) and those who were diagnosed or admitted for HF exacerbation for more than 6 months prior to initiation of ARNI treatment (prior HF group). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and worsening HF, including hospitalization or an emergency visit for HF aggravation within 12 months. Results: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were reported between the de novo and prior HF groups. The prior HF group was significantly associated with a higher primary outcome (23.9 vs. 9.4%) than the de novo HF group (adjusted hazard ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval 1.06–5.96, p = 0.036), although on a higher initial dose. The de novo HF group showed better LVEF improvement after 1 year (12.0% vs 7.4%, p = 0.010). Further, the discontinuation rate of diuretics after 1 year was numerically higher in the de novo group than the prior HF group (34.4 vs 18.5%, p = 0.064). Conclusions The de novo HF group had a lower risk of the primary composite outcome than the prior HF group in patients with reduced ejection fraction who were treated with ARNI.