As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

Background/Aims: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE+BEV) therapy has become the recommended first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because of favorable treatment responses. However, there is a lack of data on sequential regimens after ATE+BEV treatment failure. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received subsequent systemic therapy for disease progression after ATE+BEV. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included patients who started second-line systemic treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib after HCC progressed on ATE+BEV between August 2019 and December 2022. Treatment response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1.). Clinical features of the two groups were balanced through propensity score (PS) matching. Results: This study enrolled 126 patients, 40 (31.7%) in the lenvatinib group, and 86 (68.3%) in the sorafenib group. The median age was 63 years, and males were predominant (88.1%). In PS-matched cohorts (36 patients in each group), the objective response rate was similar between the lenvatinib- and sorafenib-treated groups (5.6% vs. 8.3%; P=0.643), but the disease control rate was superior in the lenvatinib group (66.7% vs. 22.2%; P<0.001). Despite the superior progression- free survival (PFS) in the lenvatinib group (3.5 vs. 1.8 months, P=0.001), the overall survival (OS, 10.3 vs. 7.5 months, P=0.353) did not differ between the two PS-matched treatment groups. Conclusions In second-line therapy for unresectable HCC after ATE+BEV failure, lenvatinib showed better PFS and comparable OS to sorafenib in a real-world setting. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to optimize second-line treatment.

As fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures gain popularity, the associated health threats from radiation exposure to interventionalists during these procedures are increasing. Therefore, an understanding of the potential risks of radiation and careful consideration on minimizing exposure to radiation during the procedures are of paramount importance. The Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a clinical practice guideline to minimize radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. This guideline provides recommendations to deal with the risk of radiation exposure to interventionalists who perform fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and emphasizes the importance of proper and practical approaches to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

Background/Aims: Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea. Methods: The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA. Results: A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%. Conclusions According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

Background: Korea recently established 70 emergency medical service areas. However, there are many concerns that medical resources for stroke could not be evenly distributed through the country. We aimed to compare the treatment quality and outcomes of acute stroke among the emergency medical service areas. Methods: This study analyzed the data of 28,800 patients admitted in 248 hospitals which participated in the 8th acute stroke quality assessment by Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Individual hospitals were regrouped into emergency service areas according to the address of the location. Assessment indicators and fatality were compared by the service areas. We defined the appropriate hospital by the performance of intravenous thrombolysis. Results: In seven service areas, there were no hospitals which received more than 10 stroke patients for 6 months. In nine service areas, there were no patients who underwent intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Among 167 designated emergency medical centers, 50 hospitals (29.9%) responded that IVT was impossible 24 hours a day. There are 97 (39.1%) hospitals that meet the definitions of appropriate hospital. In 23 service areas (32.9%) had no appropriate or feasible hospitals. The fatality of service areas with stroke centers were 6.9% within 30 days and 15.6% within 1 year from stroke onset than those without stroke centers (7.7%, 16.9%, respectively). Conclusions There was a wide regional gap in the medical resource and the quality of treatments for acute stroke among emergency medical service areas in Korea. The poststroke fatality rate of the service areas which have stroke centers or appropriate hospitals were significantly low.

Purpose: Outcome analysis of urachal cancer (UraC) is limited due to the scarcity of cases and different staging methods compared to urothelial bladder cancer (UroBC). We attempted to assess survival outcomes of UraC and compare to UroBC after stage-matched analyses. Materials and Methods: Total 203 UraC patients from a multicenter database and 373 UroBC patients in single institution from 2000 to 2018 were enrolled (median follow-up, 32 months). Sheldon stage conversion to corresponding TNM staging for UraC was conducted for head-to-head comparison to UroBC. Perioperative clinical variables and pathological results were recorded. Stage-matched analyses for survival by stage were conducted. Results: UraC patients were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001), with 163 patients (80.3%) receiving partial cystectomy and 23 patients (11.3%) radical cystectomy. UraC was more likely to harbor ≥ pT3a tumors (78.8% vs. 41.8%). While 5-year recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival were comparable between two groups (63.4%, 67%, and 62.1% in UraC and 61.5%, 75.9%, and 67.8% in UroBC, respectively), generally favorable prognosis for UraC in lower stages (pT1-2) but unfavorable outcomes in higher stages (pT4) compared to UroBC was observed, although only 5-year CSS in ≥ pT4 showed statistical significance (p=0.028). Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.929), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.921), pathologic T category (HR, 3.846), and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.993) were predictors of CSS for all patients. Conclusion Despite differing histology, UraC has comparable prognosis to UroBC with relatively favorable outcome in low stages but worse prognosis in higher stages. The presented system may be useful for future grading and risk stratification of UraC.