Purpose: We investigated the factors that affect the occurrence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) and the effect of SOS on the patient’s perioperative outcomes through histological review of liver resection specimens from patients who underwent chemotherapy. Methods: From December 2007 to December 2020, liver specimens from patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed regarding liver damage in the nontumorous lesion. Through pathological review, patients with grade 1–3 sinusoidal dilatation were categorized into the SOS (+) group, compared to a control group (grade 0, SOS [–]). Results: Of 286 patients, 175 were included. Preoperative factors were similar between the groups. Although not statistically significant, the SOS (+) group had a shorter chemotherapy-free interval before resection (7.96 weeks vs. 10.0 weeks, P = 0.069). The SOS (+) group had higher intraoperative blood loss (889.1 ± 1,126.6 mL vs. 555.3 ± 566.7 mL, P = 0.012) and transfusion rates (46.6% vs. 25.3%, P = 0.003). SOS correlated with increased liver surgery-specific complications (40.9% vs. 26.4, P = 0.043). Patients with SOS experienced adverse effects on intrahepatic recurrent-free survival and overall survival (5-year survival, 46.0% vs. 33.9%; P = 0.014). Conclusion SOS development during liver surgery is associated with increased intraoperative blood loss, transfusion volume, and liver surgery-specific complications and has a higher risk of early recurrence and decreased overall survival.Thus, it is crucial to exercise caution during liver surgery in these patients.

Purpose: We investigated the factors that affect the occurrence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) and the effect of SOS on the patient’s perioperative outcomes through histological review of liver resection specimens from patients who underwent chemotherapy. Methods: From December 2007 to December 2020, liver specimens from patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed regarding liver damage in the nontumorous lesion. Through pathological review, patients with grade 1–3 sinusoidal dilatation were categorized into the SOS (+) group, compared to a control group (grade 0, SOS [–]). Results: Of 286 patients, 175 were included. Preoperative factors were similar between the groups. Although not statistically significant, the SOS (+) group had a shorter chemotherapy-free interval before resection (7.96 weeks vs. 10.0 weeks, P = 0.069). The SOS (+) group had higher intraoperative blood loss (889.1 ± 1,126.6 mL vs. 555.3 ± 566.7 mL, P = 0.012) and transfusion rates (46.6% vs. 25.3%, P = 0.003). SOS correlated with increased liver surgery-specific complications (40.9% vs. 26.4, P = 0.043). Patients with SOS experienced adverse effects on intrahepatic recurrent-free survival and overall survival (5-year survival, 46.0% vs. 33.9%; P = 0.014). Conclusion SOS development during liver surgery is associated with increased intraoperative blood loss, transfusion volume, and liver surgery-specific complications and has a higher risk of early recurrence and decreased overall survival.Thus, it is crucial to exercise caution during liver surgery in these patients.

Purpose: We investigated the factors that affect the occurrence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) and the effect of SOS on the patient’s perioperative outcomes through histological review of liver resection specimens from patients who underwent chemotherapy. Methods: From December 2007 to December 2020, liver specimens from patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed regarding liver damage in the nontumorous lesion. Through pathological review, patients with grade 1–3 sinusoidal dilatation were categorized into the SOS (+) group, compared to a control group (grade 0, SOS [–]). Results: Of 286 patients, 175 were included. Preoperative factors were similar between the groups. Although not statistically significant, the SOS (+) group had a shorter chemotherapy-free interval before resection (7.96 weeks vs. 10.0 weeks, P = 0.069). The SOS (+) group had higher intraoperative blood loss (889.1 ± 1,126.6 mL vs. 555.3 ± 566.7 mL, P = 0.012) and transfusion rates (46.6% vs. 25.3%, P = 0.003). SOS correlated with increased liver surgery-specific complications (40.9% vs. 26.4, P = 0.043). Patients with SOS experienced adverse effects on intrahepatic recurrent-free survival and overall survival (5-year survival, 46.0% vs. 33.9%; P = 0.014). Conclusion SOS development during liver surgery is associated with increased intraoperative blood loss, transfusion volume, and liver surgery-specific complications and has a higher risk of early recurrence and decreased overall survival.Thus, it is crucial to exercise caution during liver surgery in these patients.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, and is currently indicated as a standard treatment. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is an important biomarker for predicting response to anti–programmed death 1/PD-L1 agents in several solid tumors, including gastric cancer. In the CheckMate-649 trial, significant clinical improvements were observed in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5, determined using the 28-8 pharmDx assay. Accordingly, an accurate interpretation of PD-L1 CPS, especially at a cutoff of 5, is important. The CPS method evaluates both immune and tumor cells and provides a comprehensive assessment of PD-L1 expression in the tumor microenvironment of gastric cancer. However, CPS evaluation has several limitations, one of which is poor interobserver concordance among pathologists. Despite these limitations, clinical indications relying on PD-L1 CPS are increasing. In response, Korean gastrointestinal pathologists held a consensus meeting for the interpretation of PD-L1 CPS in gastric cancer. Eleven pathologists reviewed 20 PD-L1 slides with a CPS cutoff close to 5, stained with the 28-8 pharmDx assay, and determined the consensus scores. The issues observed in discrepant cases were discussed. In this review, we present cases of gastric cancer with consensus PD-L1 CPS. In addition, we briefly touch upon current practices and clinical issues associated with assays used for the assessment of PD-L1 expression in gastric cancer.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

The first edition of ‘A Standardized Pathology Report for Gastric Cancer’ was initiated by the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists and published 17 years ago. Since then, significant advances have been made in the pathologic diagnosis, molecular genetics, and management of gastric cancer (GC). To reflect those changes, a committee for publishing a second edition of the report was formed within the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists. This second edition consists of two parts: standard data elements and conditional data elements.The standard data elements contain the basic pathologic findings and items necessary to predict the prognosis of GC patients, and they are adequate for routine surgical pathology service. Other diagnostic and prognostic factors relevant to adjuvant therapy, including molecular biomarkers, are classified as conditional data elements to allow each pathologist to selectively choose items appropriate to the environment in their institution. We trust that the standardized pathology report will be helpful for GC diagnosis and facilitate large-scale multidisciplinary collaborative studies.

The first edition of ‘A Standardized Pathology Report for Gastric Cancer’ was initiated by the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists and published 17 years ago. Since then, significant advances have been made in the pathologic diagnosis, molecular genetics, and management of gastric cancer (GC). To reflect those changes, a committee for publishing a second edition of the report was formed within the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists. This second edition consists of two parts: standard data elements and conditional data elements. The standard data elements contain the basic pathologic findings and items necessary to predict the prognosis of GC patients, and they are adequate for routine surgical pathology service. Other diagnostic and prognostic factors relevant to adjuvant therapy, including molecular biomarkers, are classified as conditional data elements to allow each pathologist to selectively choose items appropriate to the environment in their institution. We trust that the standardized pathology report will be helpful for GC diagnosis and facilitate large-scale multidisciplinary collaborative studies.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

These cases imply that the videofluoroscopic AP view helps the evaluation of the vocal fold movement in patients with vocal fold paralysis on laryngoscopy.