Purpose: While colonoscopy is the standard surveillance tool for stage I colorectal cancer according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, its effectiveness in detecting recurrence is debated. This study evaluates recurrence risk factors and patterns in stage I colorectal cancer to inform comprehensive surveillance strategies. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2,248 stage I colorectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at Samsung Medical Center (2007-2018) was conducted. Exclusions were based on familial history, prior recurrences, preoperative treatments, and inadequate data. Surveillance included colonoscopy, laboratory tests, and computed tomography (CT) scans. Results: Stage I colorectal cancer patients showed favorable 5-year disease-free survival (98.3% colon, 94.6% rectum). Among a total of 1,467 colon cancer patients, 26 (1.76%) experienced recurrence. Of the 781 rectal cancer patients, 47 (6.02%) experienced recurrence. Elevated preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels and perineural invasion were significant recurrence risk factors in colon cancer, while tumor budding was significant in rectal cancer. Distant metastasis was the main recurrence pattern in colon cancer (92.3%), while rectal cancer showed predominantly local recurrence (50%). Colonoscopy alone detected recurrences in a small fraction of cases (3.7% in colon, 14.9% in rectum). Conclusion Although recurrence in stage I colorectal cancer is rare, relying solely on colonoscopy for surveillance may miss distant metastases or locoregional recurrence outside the colorectum. For high-risk patients, we recommend considering regular CT scans alongside colonoscopy. This targeted approach may enable earlier recurrence detection and improve outcomes in this subset while avoiding unnecessary scans for the low-risk majority.

Purpose: While colonoscopy is the standard surveillance tool for stage I colorectal cancer according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, its effectiveness in detecting recurrence is debated. This study evaluates recurrence risk factors and patterns in stage I colorectal cancer to inform comprehensive surveillance strategies. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2,248 stage I colorectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at Samsung Medical Center (2007-2018) was conducted. Exclusions were based on familial history, prior recurrences, preoperative treatments, and inadequate data. Surveillance included colonoscopy, laboratory tests, and computed tomography (CT) scans. Results: Stage I colorectal cancer patients showed favorable 5-year disease-free survival (98.3% colon, 94.6% rectum). Among a total of 1,467 colon cancer patients, 26 (1.76%) experienced recurrence. Of the 781 rectal cancer patients, 47 (6.02%) experienced recurrence. Elevated preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels and perineural invasion were significant recurrence risk factors in colon cancer, while tumor budding was significant in rectal cancer. Distant metastasis was the main recurrence pattern in colon cancer (92.3%), while rectal cancer showed predominantly local recurrence (50%). Colonoscopy alone detected recurrences in a small fraction of cases (3.7% in colon, 14.9% in rectum). Conclusion Although recurrence in stage I colorectal cancer is rare, relying solely on colonoscopy for surveillance may miss distant metastases or locoregional recurrence outside the colorectum. For high-risk patients, we recommend considering regular CT scans alongside colonoscopy. This targeted approach may enable earlier recurrence detection and improve outcomes in this subset while avoiding unnecessary scans for the low-risk majority.

Purpose: While colonoscopy is the standard surveillance tool for stage I colorectal cancer according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, its effectiveness in detecting recurrence is debated. This study evaluates recurrence risk factors and patterns in stage I colorectal cancer to inform comprehensive surveillance strategies. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2,248 stage I colorectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at Samsung Medical Center (2007-2018) was conducted. Exclusions were based on familial history, prior recurrences, preoperative treatments, and inadequate data. Surveillance included colonoscopy, laboratory tests, and computed tomography (CT) scans. Results: Stage I colorectal cancer patients showed favorable 5-year disease-free survival (98.3% colon, 94.6% rectum). Among a total of 1,467 colon cancer patients, 26 (1.76%) experienced recurrence. Of the 781 rectal cancer patients, 47 (6.02%) experienced recurrence. Elevated preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels and perineural invasion were significant recurrence risk factors in colon cancer, while tumor budding was significant in rectal cancer. Distant metastasis was the main recurrence pattern in colon cancer (92.3%), while rectal cancer showed predominantly local recurrence (50%). Colonoscopy alone detected recurrences in a small fraction of cases (3.7% in colon, 14.9% in rectum). Conclusion Although recurrence in stage I colorectal cancer is rare, relying solely on colonoscopy for surveillance may miss distant metastases or locoregional recurrence outside the colorectum. For high-risk patients, we recommend considering regular CT scans alongside colonoscopy. This targeted approach may enable earlier recurrence detection and improve outcomes in this subset while avoiding unnecessary scans for the low-risk majority.

Purpose: Since the introduction of robotic surgery, robots for colorectal cancer have replaced laparoscopic surgery, and a single-port robot (SPR) platform has been launched and is being used to treat patients. We analyzed the learning curve and initial complications of using an SPR platform in colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: We reviewed 39 patients who underwent SPR colectomy from April to October 2019. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon using an SPR device. A learning curve was generated using the cumulative sum methodology to assess changes in total operation time, docking time, and surgeon console time. We grouped the patients into 3 groups according to the time period: the first 11 were phase 1, the next 11 were phase 2, and the last 17 were phase 3. Results: The mean age of the patients was 61.28±13.03 years, and they had a mean body mass index of 23.79±2.86 kg/m2. Among the patients, 23 (59.0%) were male, and 16 (41.0%) were female. The average operation time was 186.59±51.30 minutes, the average surgeon console time was 95.49±35.33 minutes, and the average docking time (time from skin incision to robot docking) was 14.87±10.38 minutes. The surgeon console time differed significantly among the different phases (P<0.001). Complications occurred in 8 patients: 2 ileus, 2 postoperation hemoglobin changes, 3 urinary retentions, and 1 complicated fluid collection. Conclusion In our experience, the learning curve for SPR colectomy was achieved after the 18th case.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate senior baccalaureate nursing students’ knowledge and visual differentiation ability for the pressure injury classification system (PICS) and incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a paper-based questionnaire with 120 senior baccalaureate nursing students in South Korea. Data were collected using a knowledge test (KT) and a visual differentiation tool (VDT) based on 21 photographs with clinical information related to PICS and IAD. Results: Students had relatively high KT scores (62.6%), and low VDT scores (35.6%). Critical issues in this study were nursing students’ lack of an adequate visual differentiation ability to accurately assess the stage of pressure injury and IAD and their higher level of confusion in identifying unstageable, deep tissue injuries, and IAD compared to stage 1-4 injuries. Satisfaction with education (r=.20, p<.05) and exposure to various teaching methods (r=.21, p<.05) exhibited significant correlations with higher VDT scores. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that increasing students’ satisfaction with their education and applying various teaching methods can contribute to the improvement of visual differentiation ability in PICS.