Purpose: This study evaluates the prognostic significance of tumor size at disease progression (PD) and depth of response (DOR) in cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We performed post hoc analysis using data from six prospective clinical trials conducted by the Korean Cancer Study Group. Patients with tumor size at PD was categorized into ‘Mild PD’ and ‘Significant PD’ based on the cutoff values of relative change from baseline using maximally selected rank statistics. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between PD and DOR categories. Results: Among the 194 evaluable patients, 130 experienced PD. A 35.48% decrease from baseline in tumor size at PD was chosen for the cutoff between mild and significant PD for OS (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ −35.48%; significant PD > −35.48%). The mild PD had superior OS compared to the significant PD (25.8 vs. 12.8 months; Hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.266-0.843, p=0.009). When using an exploratory cutoff based on whether the tumor size was below vs. exceeded from the baseline (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ 0%; significant PD > 0%), OS remained significantly longer in the mild PD (17.1 vs. 11.8 months; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.392-0.932, p=0.021). The greatest DOR was associated with the longest OS and PFS (p<0.001 for both). Conclusion Tumor size at PD and DOR were significant prognostic factors for progressive disease. Maintaining a sufficiently reduced tumor size even during PD was associated with better survival outcomes.

Purpose: This study evaluates the prognostic significance of tumor size at disease progression (PD) and depth of response (DOR) in cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We performed post hoc analysis using data from six prospective clinical trials conducted by the Korean Cancer Study Group. Patients with tumor size at PD was categorized into ‘Mild PD’ and ‘Significant PD’ based on the cutoff values of relative change from baseline using maximally selected rank statistics. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between PD and DOR categories. Results: Among the 194 evaluable patients, 130 experienced PD. A 35.48% decrease from baseline in tumor size at PD was chosen for the cutoff between mild and significant PD for OS (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ −35.48%; significant PD > −35.48%). The mild PD had superior OS compared to the significant PD (25.8 vs. 12.8 months; Hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.266-0.843, p=0.009). When using an exploratory cutoff based on whether the tumor size was below vs. exceeded from the baseline (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ 0%; significant PD > 0%), OS remained significantly longer in the mild PD (17.1 vs. 11.8 months; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.392-0.932, p=0.021). The greatest DOR was associated with the longest OS and PFS (p<0.001 for both). Conclusion Tumor size at PD and DOR were significant prognostic factors for progressive disease. Maintaining a sufficiently reduced tumor size even during PD was associated with better survival outcomes.

Purpose: This study evaluates the prognostic significance of tumor size at disease progression (PD) and depth of response (DOR) in cancer patients. Materials and Methods: We performed post hoc analysis using data from six prospective clinical trials conducted by the Korean Cancer Study Group. Patients with tumor size at PD was categorized into ‘Mild PD’ and ‘Significant PD’ based on the cutoff values of relative change from baseline using maximally selected rank statistics. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between PD and DOR categories. Results: Among the 194 evaluable patients, 130 experienced PD. A 35.48% decrease from baseline in tumor size at PD was chosen for the cutoff between mild and significant PD for OS (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ −35.48%; significant PD > −35.48%). The mild PD had superior OS compared to the significant PD (25.8 vs. 12.8 months; Hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.266-0.843, p=0.009). When using an exploratory cutoff based on whether the tumor size was below vs. exceeded from the baseline (mild PD: tumor size from the baseline ≤ 0%; significant PD > 0%), OS remained significantly longer in the mild PD (17.1 vs. 11.8 months; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.392-0.932, p=0.021). The greatest DOR was associated with the longest OS and PFS (p<0.001 for both). Conclusion Tumor size at PD and DOR were significant prognostic factors for progressive disease. Maintaining a sufficiently reduced tumor size even during PD was associated with better survival outcomes.

The prevalence of thyroid cancer in pregnant women is unknown; however, given that thyroid cancer commonly develops in women, especially young women of childbearing age, new cases are often diagnosed during pregnancy. This recommendation summarizes the follow-up and treatment when thyroid cancer is diagnosed during pregnancy and when a woman with thyroid cancer becomes pregnant. If diagnosed in the first trimester, surgery should be postponed until after delivery, and the patient should be monitored with ultrasound. If follow-up before 24–26 weeks of gestation shows that thyroid cancer has progressed, surgery should be considered. If it has not progressed at 24–26 weeks of gestation or if papillary thyroid cancer is diagnosed after 20 weeks of pregnancy, surgery should be considered after delivery.

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.

Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), characterized by elevated serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels and normal free thyroxine levels, usually presents without symptoms, and is often discovered incidentally during routine blood test. The Task Force of the Korean Thyroid Association Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines has established a guideline to evaluate and manage SCH; the guideline emphasizes the implementation of diagnostic criteria based on the TSH reference range for Koreans and focuses on the proven health benefits of levothyroxine (LT4) treatment. Based on the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2015), serum TSH level of 6.8 mIU/L is considered the reference value for SCH. SCH can be categorized as mild (TSH 6.8-10.0 mIU/L) or severe (TSH ＞10.0 mIU/L), and patients are classified as adults (age ＜70 years) or elderly patients (age ≥70years) depending on the health effects of LT4 treatment. An initial increase in serum TSH levels should be reassessed with a subsequent measurement, along with the thyroid peroxidase antibody test, preferably 2-3 months after the initial evaluation. Usually, LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild SCH in adults; however, treatment is necessary for severe SCH in patients with underlying coronary artery disease or heart failure and can be considered for coexisting dyslipidemia. LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild or even severe SCH in elderly patients, in general. Patients with SCH who receive LT4 treatment, the LT4 dosage should be personalized, and serum TSH levels should be monitored to ensure optimal LT4 dosage (dosage that is neither excessive nor insufficient). Patients with SCH who do not receive LT4 treatment require periodic follow-up at appropriate testing intervals determined by disease severity. The guideline also provides several educational points applicable in clinical settings.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of lymph node yield (LNY) for survival outcomes according to tumor response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) in patients with rectal cancer. Methods: This study was a retrospective study conducted in a tertiary center. A total of 1,240 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent curative resection after PCRT between 2007 and 2016 were included. Patients were categorized into the good response group (tumor regression grade [TRG], 0–1) or poor response group (TRG, 2–3). Propensity score matching was performed for age, sex, and pathologic stage between LNY of ≥12 and LNY of <12 within tumor response group. The primary outcome was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: LNY and positive lymph nodes were inversely correlated with TRG. In good responders, 5-year DFS and 5-year OS of patients with LNY of <12 were better than those with LNY of ≥12, but there was no statistical significance. In poor responders, the LNY of <12 group had worse survival outcomes than the LNY of ≥12 group, but there was also no statistical significance. LNY of ≥12 was not associated with DFS and OS in multivariate analysis. Conclusion LNY of <12 showed contrasting outcomes between the good and poor responders in 5-year DFS and OS. LNY of 12 may not imply adequate oncologic surgery or proper staging in rectal cancer patients treated by PCRT. Furthermore, a decrease in LNY should be comprehended differently according to tumor response.

Gout is the most common form of arthritis, with the prevalence increasing worldwide. The present treatment guidelines provide recommendations for the appropriate treatment of acute gout, management during the inter-critical period, and prevention of chronic complications. The guidelines were developed based on evidence-based medicine and draft recommendations finalized after expert consensus. These guidelines are designed to provide clinicians with clinical evidence to enable efficient treatment of gout.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.