Background: For acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with history of prior stroke (PS) and diabetes mellitus (DM), intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) therapy in the 3- to 4.5-hour window is off-label in Korea. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of IV-tPA in these patients. Methods: Using data from a prospective multicenter stroke registry between January 2009 and March 2021, we identified AIS patients who received IV-tPA in the 3- to 4.5-hour window, and compared the outcomes of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), 3-month mortality, 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-1 and 3-month mRS distribution between patients with both PS and DM (PS/DM, n=56) versus those with neither PS nor DM, or with only one (non-PS/DM, n=927). Results: The PS/DM group versus the non-PS/DM group was more likely to have a prior disability, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary heart disease and less likely to have atrial fibrillation. The PS/DM and the non-PS/DM groups had comparable rates of SICH (0% vs. 1.7%; p>0.999) and 3-month mortality (10.7% vs. 10.2%; p=0.9112). The rate of 3-month mRS 0-1 was non-significantly lower in the PS/DM group than in the non-PS/DM group (30.4% vs. 40.7%; adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.81 [0.41-1.59]). Conclusions In the 3- to 4.5-hour window, AIS patients with PS/DM, as compared to those with non-PS/DM, might benefit less from IV-tPA. However, given the similar risks of SICH and mortality, IV-tPA in the late time window could be considered in patients with both PS and DM.

Purpose: The current drain tubes for preventing surgically biliary anastomotic stricture are not naturally and easily removed. If a drain tube using biodegradable material is easily available and the degradation time of the tube is well controlled, surgical anastomotic stricture and fibrosis could be prevented. The aim of this animal study was to evaluate the preventive effect of novel biodegradable stents (BS) on biliary stricture and fibrosis after duct-to-duct (DD) biliary anastomosis. Methods: Ten mini-pigs were allocated to the control group (n = 5) and or the stent group (n = 5). The common bile duct was exposed through surgical laparotomy and then resected transversely. In the stent group, a 4-mm or 6-mm polydioxanone/ magnesium sheath-core BS was inserted according to the width of the bile duct, followed by DD biliary anastomosis. In the control group, DD biliary anastomosis was performed without BS insertion. Results: In the stent group, stents were observed without deformity for up to 4 weeks in all animals. Eight weeks later, histopathologic examination revealed that the common bile duct of the anastomosis site was relatively narrower in circumference in the control group compared to the stent group. The degree of fibrosis in the control group was more marked than in the stent group (3.84 mm vs. 0.68 mm, respectively; P < 0.05). Conclusion Our study showed that novel BS maintained their original shape and radial force for an adequate time and then disappeared without adverse events. The BS could prevent postoperative complications and strictures after DD biliary anastomosis.

Objectives: . Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCs) are frequently diagnosed at the locoregional advanced stage (stage IVa), but controversy remains regarding whether stage IVa HSNCs should be treated with upfront surgery or definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage IVa HNSC treated primarily by surgery with curative intent with/without (neo)adjuvant treatment (surgery group) versus those treated primarily with CRT (CRT group). Methods: . We reviewed data of 1,033 patients with stage IVa HNSC treated with curative intent at 17 cancer centers between 2010 and 2016. Results: . Among 1,033 patients, 765 (74.1%) received upfront surgery and 268 (25.9%) received CRT. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were 64.4% and 62.0% in the surgery group and 49.5% and 45.4% in the CRT group, respectively. In multivariate analyses, OS and DFS were better in the surgery group than in the CRT group (odds ratio [OR] for death, 0.762; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.592–0.981; OR for recurrence, 0.628; 95% CI, 0.492–0.802). In subgroup analyses, the OS and DFS of patients with oropharyngeal cancer were better in the surgery group (OR for death, 0.548; 95% CI, 0.341–0.879; OR for recurrence, 0.598; 95% CI, 0.377–0.948). In the surgery group, patients with laryngeal cancer showed better OS (OR for death, 0.432; 95% CI, 0.211–0.882), while those with hypopharyngeal cancer DFS was improved (OR for recurrence, 0.506; 95% CI, 0.328–0.780). Conclusion . A survival benefit from surgery may be achieved even in patients with stage IVa HNSC, particularly those with oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer. Surgery led to a reduction in the recurrence rate in patients with hypopharyngeal cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Objectives: . Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCs) are frequently diagnosed at the locoregional advanced stage (stage IVa), but controversy remains regarding whether stage IVa HSNCs should be treated with upfront surgery or definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage IVa HNSC treated primarily by surgery with curative intent with/without (neo)adjuvant treatment (surgery group) versus those treated primarily with CRT (CRT group). Methods: . We reviewed data of 1,033 patients with stage IVa HNSC treated with curative intent at 17 cancer centers between 2010 and 2016. Results: . Among 1,033 patients, 765 (74.1%) received upfront surgery and 268 (25.9%) received CRT. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were 64.4% and 62.0% in the surgery group and 49.5% and 45.4% in the CRT group, respectively. In multivariate analyses, OS and DFS were better in the surgery group than in the CRT group (odds ratio [OR] for death, 0.762; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.592–0.981; OR for recurrence, 0.628; 95% CI, 0.492–0.802). In subgroup analyses, the OS and DFS of patients with oropharyngeal cancer were better in the surgery group (OR for death, 0.548; 95% CI, 0.341–0.879; OR for recurrence, 0.598; 95% CI, 0.377–0.948). In the surgery group, patients with laryngeal cancer showed better OS (OR for death, 0.432; 95% CI, 0.211–0.882), while those with hypopharyngeal cancer DFS was improved (OR for recurrence, 0.506; 95% CI, 0.328–0.780). Conclusion . A survival benefit from surgery may be achieved even in patients with stage IVa HNSC, particularly those with oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer. Surgery led to a reduction in the recurrence rate in patients with hypopharyngeal cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.