Objective: To investigate the prevalence of pathological findings and clinical outcomes of riskreducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in asymptomatic carriers with germline homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV). Methods: This retrospective study enrolled asymptomatic carriers with germline HR gene PV/ LPV who underwent RRSO between 2006 and 2022 at the National Cancer Center in Korea.Clinical characteristics, including history of breast cancer, family history of ovarian/breast cancer, parity, and oral contraceptive use, were analyzed. Results: Of the 255 women who underwent RRSO, 129 (50.6%) had PV/LPV in BRCA1, 121 (47.5%) in BRCA2, and 2 (0.7%) had both BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV/LPV. In addition, 1 carried PV/ LPV in RAD51D, and 2 in BRIP1. Among the BRCA1/2 PV/LPV carriers, occult neoplasms were identified in 3.5% of patients: serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (1.1%, n=3), fallopian tubal cancers (0.8%, n=2), ovarian cancer (1.2%, n=3), and breast cancer (0.4%, n=1). Of the 9 patients with occult neoplasms, 5 (2.0%) were identified from the 178 breast cancer patients, and 4 (1.6%) were detected in 65 healthy mutation carriers. During the median follow-up period of 36.7 months (interquartile range, 25.9–71.4), 1 (0.4%) BRCA1 PV carrier with no precursor lesions at RRSO developed primary peritoneal carcinomatosis after 30.1 months. Conclusion Women with HRR gene mutations PV/LPV who undergo RRSO are at a risk of detecting occult neoplasms, with a of 3.5%. Even in the absence of precursor lesions during RRSO, there was a cumulative risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis development, emphasizing the need for continued surveillance.

With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Society of Osteoporosis, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining Stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3-4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management.This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.

With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Society of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Osteoporosis Society, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3 to 4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management. This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.

Background: Despite the growing necessity for government-led policy changes on clinical research ethics during pandemic, the scope of previous literature is limited to Korean government’s pandemic response strategies or reflections of research ethics at the level of institutions and academic societies. This paper examines the proactive policy changes and responses by the South Korean government in addressing the challenges and issues of research ethics against the backdrop of the urgency of rapid development and emergency supply of medical products during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We conducted searches of various government documents, using predetermined keywords related to research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only documents issued by governments or public institutions were included. A total of 24 documents were selected for analysis. They were divided into two phases: the first phase for urgent response (January 2020–February 2021) and the second phase (March 2021–February 2023) for long-term preparedness. Results: The Korean government recommended several measures of research governance to accelerate the ethical review of COVID-related research to be shortened less than one week:the joint operation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exempted or expedited review by a special review committee, guidelines for urgent reviews, and designation of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences as the supervising agency for the Clinical Trial Safety Support Institution as well as the Central IRB. It allowed temporary non-face-to-face methods for informed consent process (telephone explanations and a photo of the original signed consent) and clinical trials (telephone counselling and prescription, proxy prescription, and drug delivery and supply to clinical trial participants, and online ethics training). Conclusion As a result of South Korea’s commitment to ethical principles in their pandemic response, the medical system did not experience collapses due to the pandemic, and pandemic research was conducted with careful ethical considerations. The pandemic ethics immunization during the Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2015 laid the foundation for prompt government initiatives that ensured both pandemic research ethics and pandemic response ethics.