Background: s/Aims: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the standard treatment for periampullary tumors, but it is technically challenging. Evidence directly comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic, and hybrid approaches is limited. This study conducts a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open PD (OPD), laparoscopic PD (LPD), robotic PD (RPD), and hybrid PD. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1994 and August 2024.We included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies that evaluated at least two PD approaches. Perioperative outcomes were the primary endpoints, while oncologic safety served as a secondary endpoint. A random-effects NMA was performed, establishing treatment hierarchies through ranking probabilities (PROSPERO ID: CRD420250365864). Results: A total of 78 studies were included (5 randomized and 73 retrospective). RPD was associated with lower blood loss compared to OPD (mean difference [MD], –163.85 mL) and LPD (MD, –84.14 mL). Hospital stays were also shorter for RPD compared to OPD (MD, –2.50 days) and LPD (MD, –1.88 days). In contrast, OPD was the most time-efficient approach compared to LPD (MD, –77.61 minutes) and RPD (MD, –73.30 minutes). Mortality rates, severe complications, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, and reoperation rates were comparable across all surgical approaches. In terms of oncologic safety, lymph node yield and R0 resection rates were similar for all modalities. Conclusions While OPD is the most time-efficient approach, RPD provides significant advantages in reducing intraoperative blood loss and shortening hospital stays compared to both LPD and OPD.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Objective: Primary frozen shoulder causes significant pain and progressively restricts shoulder movements. Diagnosis is made clinically based on patient history and physical examination. Management is mainly non-invasive owing to its self-limiting clinical course. However, clinical practice guidelines for frozen shoulder have not yet been developed in Korea. The developed guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of frozen shoulder. Methods: A guideline development committee reviewed the literature from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KMbase). Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework, the committee formulated two backgrounds and 16 key questions to address common clinical concerns. Recommendations were made using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia significantly increase the risk of developing a frozen shoulder. Although frozen shoulder is often self-limiting, some patients may experience long-term functional disabilities. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging should be used as adjunctive tools alongside clinical diagnosis, and rather than as independent diagnostic methods. Noninvasive approaches, such as medications, physical modalities, exercises, electrical stimulation, and manual therapy, may reduce pain and improve shoulder function. Other noninvasive interventions have limited evidence, and their application should be based on clinical judgment. Intra-articular steroid injections are recommended for treatment, and physiotherapy or hydrodilation with steroid injections can also be beneficial. Conclusion These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary frozen shoulder.

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: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new bone lesions are sometimes not properly categorized through a confirmatory bone scan, and clinical significance of the test itself remains unclear. This study aimed to demonstrate the performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting and their prognostic impact in enzalutamide-treated mCRPC. Materials and Methods: Patients who received oral enzalutamide for mCRPC during 2014-2017 at 14 tertiary centers in Korea were included. Patients lacking imaging assessment data or insufficient drug exposure were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed. Results: Overall, 520 patients with mCRPC were enrolled (240 [26.2%] chemotherapy-naïve and 280 [53.2%] after chemotherapy). Among 352 responders, 92 patients (26.1%) showed new bone lesions in their early bone scan. Confirmatory bone scan was performed in 41 patients (44.6%), and it was associated with prolonged OS in the entire population (median, 30.9 vs. 19.7 months; p < 0.001), as well as in the chemotherapy-naïve (median, 47.2 vs. 20.5 months; p=0.011) and post-chemotherapy sub-groups (median, 25.5 vs. 18.0 months; p=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression showed that confirmatory bone scan performance was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.69; p=0.002). Conclusion Confirmatory bone scan performance was associated with prolonged OS. Thus, the premature discontinuation of enzalutamide without confirmatory bone scans should be discouraged.

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.