We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Background: The preanalytical phase is more vulnerable to errors. This study aimed to establish preanalytical quality indicators (QIs) suitable for Korean clinical laboratories and investigate the current status of preanalytical phase performance monitoring in Korea using these QIs. Methods: We reviewed previous studies investigating preanalytical QIs including the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) model of QIs, to establish a set of QIs for Korean clinical laboratories. An e-mail survey consisting of this QI set was sent to 90 clinical laboratories. The collected data were analyzed, and performance measures were evaluated according to the quality specifications defined by the IFCC and the sigmascale method. Results: A model consisting of 23 preanalytical phase QIs was established.Approximately 47% (42/90) of clinical laboratories responded to the survey.The average result submission rate for each QI was 56% (standard deviation, 26%). The QIs with the highest and lowest result submission rates were “rejected samples due to hemolysis” (95%) and “recollected sample due to errors caused outside the laboratory” (17%). The QIs with the highest and lowest error rates were “hemolyzed sample detected by hemolytic index” (median, 0.546%; sigma performance level, “good”) and “samples not received” (median, 0.001%; sigma performance level, “very good”), respectively. Conclusions This survey findings on preanalytical phase QIs could serve as a foundation for developing an external quality assessment program for clinical laboratories in Korea.

Background: The preanalytical phase is more vulnerable to errors. This study aimed to establish preanalytical quality indicators (QIs) suitable for Korean clinical laboratories and investigate the current status of preanalytical phase performance monitoring in Korea using these QIs. Methods: We reviewed previous studies investigating preanalytical QIs including the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) model of QIs, to establish a set of QIs for Korean clinical laboratories. An e-mail survey consisting of this QI set was sent to 90 clinical laboratories. The collected data were analyzed, and performance measures were evaluated according to the quality specifications defined by the IFCC and the sigmascale method. Results: A model consisting of 23 preanalytical phase QIs was established.Approximately 47% (42/90) of clinical laboratories responded to the survey.The average result submission rate for each QI was 56% (standard deviation, 26%). The QIs with the highest and lowest result submission rates were “rejected samples due to hemolysis” (95%) and “recollected sample due to errors caused outside the laboratory” (17%). The QIs with the highest and lowest error rates were “hemolyzed sample detected by hemolytic index” (median, 0.546%; sigma performance level, “good”) and “samples not received” (median, 0.001%; sigma performance level, “very good”), respectively. Conclusions This survey findings on preanalytical phase QIs could serve as a foundation for developing an external quality assessment program for clinical laboratories in Korea.

Background: The preanalytical phase is more vulnerable to errors. This study aimed to establish preanalytical quality indicators (QIs) suitable for Korean clinical laboratories and investigate the current status of preanalytical phase performance monitoring in Korea using these QIs. Methods: We reviewed previous studies investigating preanalytical QIs including the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) model of QIs, to establish a set of QIs for Korean clinical laboratories. An e-mail survey consisting of this QI set was sent to 90 clinical laboratories. The collected data were analyzed, and performance measures were evaluated according to the quality specifications defined by the IFCC and the sigmascale method. Results: A model consisting of 23 preanalytical phase QIs was established.Approximately 47% (42/90) of clinical laboratories responded to the survey.The average result submission rate for each QI was 56% (standard deviation, 26%). The QIs with the highest and lowest result submission rates were “rejected samples due to hemolysis” (95%) and “recollected sample due to errors caused outside the laboratory” (17%). The QIs with the highest and lowest error rates were “hemolyzed sample detected by hemolytic index” (median, 0.546%; sigma performance level, “good”) and “samples not received” (median, 0.001%; sigma performance level, “very good”), respectively. Conclusions This survey findings on preanalytical phase QIs could serve as a foundation for developing an external quality assessment program for clinical laboratories in Korea.

Since the latest practice guidelines for ovarian cancer were developed by the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) in 2021, many studies have examined the efficacy and safety of various treatments for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Therefore, the need to develop recommendations for EOC treatments has been raised. This study searched the literature using 4 key items and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome: the efficacy and safety of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors in newly diagnosed advanced EOC; the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy in optimally debulked advanced EOC; the efficacy and safety of secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinumsensitive recurrent ovarian cancer; and the efficacy and safety of the addition of bevacizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy in first platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC patients who received prior bevacizumab. The evidence for these recommendations, according to each key question, was evaluated using a systematic review and meta-analysis. The committee of ovarian cancer of the KSGO developed updated guidelines for treatments of EOC.

Since the latest practice guidelines for ovarian cancer were developed by the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) in 2021, many studies have examined the efficacy and safety of various treatments for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Therefore, the need to develop recommendations for EOC treatments has been raised. This study searched the literature using 4 key items and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome: the efficacy and safety of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors in newly diagnosed advanced EOC; the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy in optimally debulked advanced EOC; the efficacy and safety of secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinumsensitive recurrent ovarian cancer; and the efficacy and safety of the addition of bevacizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy in first platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC patients who received prior bevacizumab. The evidence for these recommendations, according to each key question, was evaluated using a systematic review and meta-analysis. The committee of ovarian cancer of the KSGO developed updated guidelines for treatments of EOC.

Background: The preanalytical phase is more vulnerable to errors. This study aimed to establish preanalytical quality indicators (QIs) suitable for Korean clinical laboratories and investigate the current status of preanalytical phase performance monitoring in Korea using these QIs. Methods: We reviewed previous studies investigating preanalytical QIs including the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) model of QIs, to establish a set of QIs for Korean clinical laboratories. An e-mail survey consisting of this QI set was sent to 90 clinical laboratories. The collected data were analyzed, and performance measures were evaluated according to the quality specifications defined by the IFCC and the sigmascale method. Results: A model consisting of 23 preanalytical phase QIs was established.Approximately 47% (42/90) of clinical laboratories responded to the survey.The average result submission rate for each QI was 56% (standard deviation, 26%). The QIs with the highest and lowest result submission rates were “rejected samples due to hemolysis” (95%) and “recollected sample due to errors caused outside the laboratory” (17%). The QIs with the highest and lowest error rates were “hemolyzed sample detected by hemolytic index” (median, 0.546%; sigma performance level, “good”) and “samples not received” (median, 0.001%; sigma performance level, “very good”), respectively. Conclusions This survey findings on preanalytical phase QIs could serve as a foundation for developing an external quality assessment program for clinical laboratories in Korea.