1.Age Estimation Using Convolutional Neural Networks with Lumbar and Thoracic Spine Images from Postmortem Computed Tomography: A Pilot Study
Ju-Heon LEE ; Jin-Woo KIM ; Kyung-Ryoul KIM ; In-Soo SEO ; Nak-Won LEE ; Chang-Un CHOI ; Hye-Jeong KIM ; Byung-Yoon ROH
Korean Journal of Legal Medicine 2026;50(1):1-8
In forensic medicine, age estimation commonly involves assessing age-related changes in teeth and skeletal structures. Vertebral morphological alterations, such as osteophyte formation, serve as age indicators. Recent studies using deep-learning techniques, such as neural networks, for age estimation from radiographic images have been conducted, reporting significantly higher accuracy than previous studies. This study aimed to estimate age using neural network-based deep-learning techniques applied to computed tomography (CT) cross-sectional images of the spine and evaluate its feasibility. Postmortem CT scans of 214 cadavers with varying decomposition levels were used. Coronal and sagittal cross-sectional images penetrating the center of each vertebral body were extracted for the 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae and the first to fifth lumbar vertebrae. Using these images, along with the chronological ages of deceased individuals, an age estimation model was developed through regression analysis in PyTorch, employing a convolutional neural networks architecture with five-fold cross-validation. The model achieved a mean absolute error of 5.385 years, root mean squared error of 7.029 years, and coefficient of determination of 0.793. Although the sample size was relatively small, the results suggested the potential applicability of vertebral imagingbased age estimation in the Korean population. Further research using a larger dataset may improve the accuracy and reliability of the model.
2.Real-World Efficacy of Intravesical Gemcitabine for BCG-Unresponsive Non–muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Hye Won LEE ; Eui Hyun JUNG ; Kyung Hwan KIM ; Hong Koo HA ; Jong Jin OH ; Seok Ho KANG ; Seung-hwan JEONG ; Hyeong Dong YUK ; Ji Eun HEO ; Won Sik HAM ; Eu Chang HWANG ; Seung Il JUNG ; Wan SONG ; Bumjin LIM ; Bumsik HONG ; Byung Chang JEONG ; Ho Kyung SEO
Cancer Research and Treatment 2026;58(2):591-602
Purpose:
This study aimed to report the real-world outcomes of intravesical gemcitabine for bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC) in Korean patients who were unable or unwilling to undergo radical cystectomy (RC).
Materials and Methods:
This retrospective study included 131 patients (median age, 69 years; 88.5% men) treated with intravesical gemcitabine for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC at nine centers between May 2019 and April 2022. The primary endpoint was 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). The secondary endpoints included factors influencing RFS, progression-free survival (PFS), cystectomy- free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk factors for recurrence were assessed using Cox regression models.
Results:
Patients were followed up for a median duration of 25 months, with carcinoma in situ (CIS) in 41.9% of the patients. The 1-year and 2-year RFS rates were 68% and 42%, while the 1-year and 2-year PFS rates were 87% and 77%, respectively. No significant factors influencing RFS were identified. Seventeen patients underwent RC during a median follow-up of 16 months, with the condition in three patients progressing to muscle-invasive disease on final pathological analysis. The 2-year CSS and OS rates were 98% and 97%, respectively. Intravesical gemcitabine was well-tolerated, with only seven patients (5.3%) unable to complete the full induction course.
Conclusion
Our research highlights the potential of intravesical gemcitabine as a viable bladder-sparing treatment option for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC, providing real-world evidence on its safety, efficacy, and tolerability.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
4.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
5.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
6.A Randomized Trial of Sentinel Node Biopsy Omission After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Clinically Node-Negative or Selected Node-Positive Breast Cancer
Ji-Jung JUNG ; Hee Jeong KIM ; Byung Joo CHAE ; Eun-Kyu KIM ; Jee Hyun AHN ; Joon JEONG ; Seeyoun LEE ; Seung Pil JUNG ; Joohyun WOO ; Junwon MIN ; Jong-Ho CHEUN ; Min Sung CHUNG ; Kyung Hwan SHIN ; Jung Min CHANG ; Woo Kyung MOON ; Wonshik HAN
Journal of Breast Cancer 2025;28(6):437-447
Purpose:
Axillary surgery is increasingly omitted in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing upfront surgery, as supported by trials such as SOUND and INSEMA. However, in the neoadjuvant setting, the omission of axillary surgery has only been explored in small single-arm studies involving highly selected patients with confirmed breast pathologic complete response (pCR). The NeoNAUTILUS trial aimed to evaluate the oncologic safety of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with a high probability of achieving an axillary pCR (ypN0) following neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), regardless of breast pCR status.
Methods
NeoNAUTILUS is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted at 12 tertiary centers in Korea. Eligible participants were women with clinical T1–T3, N0, or selected N1 invasive breast cancer, who completed NST and were candidates for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Prior to enrollment, all patients underwent axillary ultrasound after NST completion to exclude suspicious lymph nodes. Patients with clinical N0 disease of any subtype were eligible for inclusion. Patients with clinical N1 disease with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive or triple-negative tumors may be included if their primary tumor demonstrates a > 30% reduction on magnetic resonance imaging after NST. Participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo BCS with or without SLNB, stratified by clinical nodal status and tumor subtype. Patients were randomized and remained blinded until surgery. The primary endpoint is the 5-year invasive disease-free survival. A total of 464 patients are expected to be enrolled over 3 years, with a 5-year follow-up period.Discussion: NeoNAUTILUS is the first randomized trial to assess the omission of axillary surgery after NST based on the predicted nodal response, independent of breast pCR. This study may redefine axillary management in the neoadjuvant setting by identifying patients who can safely avoid SLNB, thereby reducing surgical morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes.
7.Dental Age Estimation in Children Using Convolution Neural Network Algorithm: A Pilot Study
Byung-Yoon ROH ; Hyun-Jeong PARK ; Kyung-Ryoul KIM ; In-Soo SEO ; Yeon-Ho OH ; Ju-Heon LEE ; Chang-Un CHOI ; Yo-Seob SEO ; Ji-Won RYU ; Jong-Mo AHN
Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain 2024;49(4):118-123
Purpose:
Recently, deep learning techniques have been introduced for age estimation, with automated methods based on radiographic analysis demonstrating high accuracy. In this study, we applied convolutional neural network (CNN) techniques to the lower dentition area on orthopantomograms (OPGs) of children to develop an automated age estimation model and evaluate its accuracy for use in forensic dentistry.
Methods:
In this study, OPGs of 2,856 subjects aged 3-14 years were analyzed. The You Only Look Once (YOLO) V8 object detection technique was applied to extract the mandibular dentition area on OPGs, designating it as the region of interest (ROI). First, 200 radiographs were randomly selected, and were used to train a model for extracting the ROI. The trained model was then applied to the entire dataset. For the CNN image classification task, 80% of OPGs were allocated to the training set, while the remaining 20% were used as the test set. A transfer learning approach was employed using the ResNet50 and VGG19 backbone models, with an ensemble technique combining these models to improve performance. The mean absolute error (MAE) on the test set was used as the validation metric, and the model with the lowest MAE was selected.
Results:
In this study, the age estimation model developed using mandibular dentition region from OPGs achieved MAE and root mean squared error (RMSE) values of 0.501 and 0.742, respectively, on the test set, and MAE and RMSE values of 0.273 and 0.354, respectively, on the training set.
Conclusions
The automated age estimation model developed in this study demonstrated accuracy comparable to that of previous research and shows potential for applications in forensic investigations. Increasing the sample size and incorporating diverse deep learning techniques are expected to further enhance the accuracy of future age estimation models.
8.Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment
Hyo Seon RYU ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Woong Bae JI ; Byung Chang KIM ; Ji Hun KIM ; Sung Kyung MOON ; Sung Il KANG ; Han Deok KWAK ; Eun Sun KIM ; Chang Hyun KIM ; Tae Hyung KIM ; Gyoung Tae NOH ; Byung-Soo PARK ; Hyeung-Min PARK ; Jeong Mo BAE ; Jung Hoon BAE ; Ni Eun SEO ; Chang Hoon SONG ; Mi Sun AHN ; Jae Seon EO ; Young Chul YOON ; Joon-Kee YOON ; Kyung Ha LEE ; Kyung Hee LEE ; Kil-Yong LEE ; Myung Su LEE ; Sung Hak LEE ; Jong Min LEE ; Ji Eun LEE ; Han Hee LEE ; Myong Hoon IHN ; Je-Ho JANG ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Kum Ju CHAE ; Jin-Ho CHOI ; Dae Hee PYO ; Gi Won HA ; Kyung Su HAN ; Young Ki HONG ; Chang Won HONG ; Jung-Myun KWAK ;
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(2):89-113
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.
9.Silent pheochromocytoma in adrenal incidentaloma:unveiling clinical and radiological characteristics
Byung-Chang KIM ; Shin Jeong PAK ; Douk KWON ; Jae Won CHO ; Won Woong KIM ; Yu-mi LEE ; Kye Jin PARK ; Ki-Wook CHUNG ; Tae-Yon SUNG
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2024;106(1):38-44
Purpose:
Silent pheochromocytoma refers to tumors without signs and symptoms of catecholamine excess. This study aimed to clarify the clinical, radiological characteristics, and perioperative features of silent pheochromocytomas diagnosed after adrenalectomy for adrenal incidentaloma.
Methods:
Medical records of patients who underwent adrenalectomy for adrenal incidentaloma and were subsequently diagnosed with silent pheochromocytoma between January 2000 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for demographic, diagnostic, surgical, and pathological findings.
Results:
Of the 130 patients who underwent adrenalectomy for incidentaloma, 8 (6.1%) were diagnosed with silent pheochromocytoma. Almost all patients had no hypertensive symptoms and their baseline hormonal levels remained within normal ranges. All patients exhibited tumor size >4 cm, precontrast Hounsfield unit >10, and absolute washout <60%. Intraoperative hypertensive events were noted in 2 patients (25.0%) in whom antiadrenergic medications were not administered. All patients in the intraoperative hypertensive event group exhibited atypical features on CT, whereas 83.3% of patients in the non-intraoperative hypertensive event group showed atypical features on CT imaging.
Conclusion
Silent pheochromocytomas share radiological traits with malignant adrenal tumors. Suspicious features on CT scans warrant surgical consideration for appropriate treatment. Administering alpha-blockers can enhance hemodynamic stability during adrenalectomy in suspected silent pheochromocytoma cases.
10.Early stage adrenocortical carcinoma—what contributes to poor prognosis after adrenalectomy? A retrospective cohort study
Douk KWON ; Cheong-Sil RAH ; Byung-Chang KIM ; Shin Jeong PAK ; Jae Won CHO ; Won Woong KIM ; Yu-mi LEE ; Jae Lyun LEE ; Dong Eun SONG ; Ki-Wook CHUNG ; Tae-Yon SUNG
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2024;107(4):187-194
Purpose:
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare primary carcinoma originating in the adrenal gland with a poor prognosis and a high recurrence rate. This study evaluated the risk factors associated with recurrence in patients with early stage ACC after curative surgical resection.
Methods:
The present study retrospectively evaluated the risk factors for recurrence in 38 patients with stages 1 and 2 ACC who underwent curative resection between 1995 and 2020.
Results:
Recurrence was observed in 21 patients (55.3%), with no significant difference between stages 1 and 2 ACC (P = 0.640). The overall recurrence rate was higher in patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery than open adrenalectomy (71.4% vs. 51.6%). Of the 33 patients with gross tumor margins negative for malignancy, 16 (48.5%) experienced tumor recurrence, and all 5 patients with positive and unknown gross resection margins had recurrence.Recurrences were observed in 14 of the 30 patients (46.7%) negative for pathologic resection margins, 6 of the 7 patients (85.7%) with pathologically indeterminate margins, and 1 patient with pathologically positive margins.
Conclusion
The recurrence rates are high even in patients with early stage ACC, being higher in patients who undergo minimally invasive surgery than open adrenalectomy. Obtaining clear resection margins during surgery may reduce tumor recurrence; however, gross or pathologic margin safety was not a secure factor in preventing recurrence. None of the factors analyzed was a definitive predictor of poor prognosis.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail