Purpose: Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) represents a severe postoperative complication following total or proximal gastrectomy. Treatment strategies include conservative management, endoscopic interventions, and surgery; however, comparative data remain limited. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of different strategies to identify the optimal approach based on anastomotic defect size. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 100 patients diagnosed with EJAL between January 2015 and October 2024. Patients were categorized into four groups:conservative management, endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (E-VAC), other endoscopic treatments, and surgery. The primary outcomes were leakage duration and length of hospital stay after EJAL diagnosis, whereas the secondary outcome was time to C-reactive protein normalization. Subgroup analyses were performed according to defect size. Results: Among the 100 patients, 76 were male and 24 were female, with a mean age of 65.7 years. Conservative treatment was the most common modality (53%), followed by other endoscopic treatments (19%), E-VAC (14%), and surgery (14%). In patients with a defect size <1 cm, conservative treatment was associated with significantly shorter leakage duration (P=0.035) and earlier resumption of diet (P=0.029) compared with endoscopic treatment.Among those with defects ≥2 cm, E-VAC demonstrated the most favorable median outcomes across all variables; however, statistical significance was not achieved because of the small sample size. Conclusions Conservative treatment appears to be the most effective treatment strategy for EJAL with anastomotic defects <1 cm. For larger defects (≥2 cm), E-VAC may offer clinical benefit, although further studies are needed to confirm its efficacy. These findings highlight the importance of individualized treatment selection based on defect size.

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the “probable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)” category in the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) v2022 guidelines. Materials and Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients at risk of HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between January 2015 and June 2018; a subgroup of these patients also underwent liver CT. Eligible patients had at least one non-cystic lesion (≥10 mm) with a reference standard. Four radiologists interpreted the images independently and the results were pooled. The performance of “definite HCC” and “probable HCC” together and “probable HCC” alone were compared between v2018 and v2022. Results: A total of 2,237 patients (1,666 men; mean age, 59 ± 11 years) with 2,445 lesions were included. In v2022, 1.5% (143/9,780) of the lesions were additionally categorized as “probable HCC” by four reviewers on MRI; among these, 104 lesions were not HCCs. Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) or FNH-like nodules constituted 90.4% (94/104) of the false positives. When “definite HCC” and “probable HCC” were combined, v2022 showed higher sensitivity (83.7% [5,670/6,776] vs. 83.1% [5,631/6,776]) but lower specificity (77.1% [2,316/3,004] vs. 80.6% [2,420/3,004]) than v2018 (P < 0.001). For “probable HCC” alone, v2022 showed a lower positive predictive value (PPV) than v2018 (64.1% [373/582] vs. 76.1% [334/439], P < 0.001). In v2022, lesions with non-rim arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE) showed a lower PPV than those without APHE (42.3% [91/215] vs. 76.8% [282/367], P < 0.001). In the CT subgroup (n = 1,590), 1.6% (99/6,360) of the lesions were reassessed as “probable HCC,” and its PPV was 83.8% (83/99) in v2022 whereas no lesions were classified as “probable HCC” under v2018. Conclusion The revised “probable HCC” category in the KLCA-NCC v2022 aligns with updates in the diagnostic flow, demonstrating acceptable performance on MRI and CT. Notably, FNH or FNH-like nodules can be misclassified as “probable HCC” when MRI is used.

Purpose: This study aimed to define an optimal age cutoff for early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) and compare its characteristics with those of late-onset gastric cancer (LOGC) using nationwide survey data. Methods: Using data from a nationwide survey, this comprehensive population-based study analyzed data spanning 3 years (2009, 2014, and 2019). The joinpoint analysis and interrupted time series (ITS) methodology were employed to identify age cutoffs for EOGC based on the sex ratio and tumor histology. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the EOGC and LOGC groups. Results: The age cutoff for defining EOGC was suggested to be 50 years, supported by joinpoint and ITS analyses. Early gastric cancer was predominantly present in the EOGC and LOGC groups. Patients with EOGC comprised 20.3% of the total study cohort and demonstrated a more advanced disease stage compared to patients with LOGC. However, patients with EOGC underwent more minimally invasive surgeries, experienced shorter hospital stays, and had lower postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Conclusion This study proposes an age of ≤50 years as a criterion for defining EOGC and highlights its features compared to LOGC. Further research using this criterion should guide tailored treatment strategies and improve outcomes for young patients with gastric cancer.

Purpose: Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) in gastric cancer is an effective approach for establishing treatment plans.However, the appropriateness of using “ratio of MDT” as an item for evaluating the adequacy of gastric cancer treatment in Korea has not been previously researched. The purpose of this study is to verify whether the “ratio of MDT” is appropriate as an item for gastric cancer adequacy evaluation from the surgeon’s perspective. Methods: This study involved 142 patients who received MDT at our hospital between December 2015 and January 2023.Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date when gastric cancer adequacy evaluation was implemented; there were 71 patients before and after the evaluation was conducted, respectively. Based on electronic medical records, the initial plan prepared before the MDT clinic and the final plan prepared after the clinic were compared to determine whether the plan was changed. Results: The average age of patients who received MDT before and after the evaluation was 64.8 and 62.2 years, respectively. Overall, 50 and 21 patients were male (70.4%) and female (29.6%), respectively, in both groups. Before the evaluation, 26 patients (36.6%) who received MDT changed their treatment plans after visiting the clinic, and 15 patients (21.1%) who received MDT after the evaluation had their treatment plans modified. Groups who received MDT and changes in treatment plans were significantly correlated (P = 0.042). Conclusion Our findings suggest that including the “ratio of MDT” as an item of gastric cancer adequacy evaluation needs reassessment.

Purpose: This study aimed to define an optimal age cutoff for early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) and compare its characteristics with those of late-onset gastric cancer (LOGC) using nationwide survey data. Methods: Using data from a nationwide survey, this comprehensive population-based study analyzed data spanning 3 years (2009, 2014, and 2019). The joinpoint analysis and interrupted time series (ITS) methodology were employed to identify age cutoffs for EOGC based on the sex ratio and tumor histology. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the EOGC and LOGC groups. Results: The age cutoff for defining EOGC was suggested to be 50 years, supported by joinpoint and ITS analyses. Early gastric cancer was predominantly present in the EOGC and LOGC groups. Patients with EOGC comprised 20.3% of the total study cohort and demonstrated a more advanced disease stage compared to patients with LOGC. However, patients with EOGC underwent more minimally invasive surgeries, experienced shorter hospital stays, and had lower postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Conclusion This study proposes an age of ≤50 years as a criterion for defining EOGC and highlights its features compared to LOGC. Further research using this criterion should guide tailored treatment strategies and improve outcomes for young patients with gastric cancer.

Purpose: Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) in gastric cancer is an effective approach for establishing treatment plans.However, the appropriateness of using “ratio of MDT” as an item for evaluating the adequacy of gastric cancer treatment in Korea has not been previously researched. The purpose of this study is to verify whether the “ratio of MDT” is appropriate as an item for gastric cancer adequacy evaluation from the surgeon’s perspective. Methods: This study involved 142 patients who received MDT at our hospital between December 2015 and January 2023.Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date when gastric cancer adequacy evaluation was implemented; there were 71 patients before and after the evaluation was conducted, respectively. Based on electronic medical records, the initial plan prepared before the MDT clinic and the final plan prepared after the clinic were compared to determine whether the plan was changed. Results: The average age of patients who received MDT before and after the evaluation was 64.8 and 62.2 years, respectively. Overall, 50 and 21 patients were male (70.4%) and female (29.6%), respectively, in both groups. Before the evaluation, 26 patients (36.6%) who received MDT changed their treatment plans after visiting the clinic, and 15 patients (21.1%) who received MDT after the evaluation had their treatment plans modified. Groups who received MDT and changes in treatment plans were significantly correlated (P = 0.042). Conclusion Our findings suggest that including the “ratio of MDT” as an item of gastric cancer adequacy evaluation needs reassessment.

Purpose: This study aimed to define an optimal age cutoff for early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) and compare its characteristics with those of late-onset gastric cancer (LOGC) using nationwide survey data. Methods: Using data from a nationwide survey, this comprehensive population-based study analyzed data spanning 3 years (2009, 2014, and 2019). The joinpoint analysis and interrupted time series (ITS) methodology were employed to identify age cutoffs for EOGC based on the sex ratio and tumor histology. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the EOGC and LOGC groups. Results: The age cutoff for defining EOGC was suggested to be 50 years, supported by joinpoint and ITS analyses. Early gastric cancer was predominantly present in the EOGC and LOGC groups. Patients with EOGC comprised 20.3% of the total study cohort and demonstrated a more advanced disease stage compared to patients with LOGC. However, patients with EOGC underwent more minimally invasive surgeries, experienced shorter hospital stays, and had lower postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Conclusion This study proposes an age of ≤50 years as a criterion for defining EOGC and highlights its features compared to LOGC. Further research using this criterion should guide tailored treatment strategies and improve outcomes for young patients with gastric cancer.

Purpose: Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) in gastric cancer is an effective approach for establishing treatment plans.However, the appropriateness of using “ratio of MDT” as an item for evaluating the adequacy of gastric cancer treatment in Korea has not been previously researched. The purpose of this study is to verify whether the “ratio of MDT” is appropriate as an item for gastric cancer adequacy evaluation from the surgeon’s perspective. Methods: This study involved 142 patients who received MDT at our hospital between December 2015 and January 2023.Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date when gastric cancer adequacy evaluation was implemented; there were 71 patients before and after the evaluation was conducted, respectively. Based on electronic medical records, the initial plan prepared before the MDT clinic and the final plan prepared after the clinic were compared to determine whether the plan was changed. Results: The average age of patients who received MDT before and after the evaluation was 64.8 and 62.2 years, respectively. Overall, 50 and 21 patients were male (70.4%) and female (29.6%), respectively, in both groups. Before the evaluation, 26 patients (36.6%) who received MDT changed their treatment plans after visiting the clinic, and 15 patients (21.1%) who received MDT after the evaluation had their treatment plans modified. Groups who received MDT and changes in treatment plans were significantly correlated (P = 0.042). Conclusion Our findings suggest that including the “ratio of MDT” as an item of gastric cancer adequacy evaluation needs reassessment.