Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Purpose: Clinical outcomes of surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have not been investigated for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), despite well-established outcomes in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with LAPC who underwent curative resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 2017 and December 2020. Results: Among 1,358 patients, 260 underwent surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Among 356 LAPC patients, 98 (27.5%) and 147 (35.1%) of 418 BRPC patients underwent surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Compared to resectable pancreatic cancer (resectable PC) with upfront surgery, both LAPC and BRPC exhibited higher rates of venous resection (28.6% vs. 49.0% vs. 4.0%), arterial resection (30.6% vs. 6.8% vs. 0.5%) and greater estimated blood loss (260.5 vs. 213.1 vs. 70.4 mL). However, hospital stay, readmission rates, and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates (grade B or C) did not differ significantly between LAPC, BRPC, and resectable PC. Overall and relapse-free survival did not differ significantly between LAPC and BRPC patients. The median overall survival was 37.3 months for LAPC and 37.0 months for BRPC. The median relapse-free survival was 22.7 months for LAPC and 26.0 months for BRPC. Conclusion Overall survival time and postoperative complications in LAPC patients who underwent curative resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed similar results to those of BRPC patients. Further research is needed to identify specific sub-populations of LAPC patients who benefit most from conversion surgery and to minimize postoperative complications.