1.Associated factors of osteoporosis and the impact of osteoporosis on all-cause mortality in incident hemodialysis older patients
Seunghye LEE ; Yoomee KANG ; Yu Ah HONG ; Sung Joon SHIN ; Soon Hyo KWON ; Sungjin CHUNG ; Young Youl HYUN ; Sang Heon SONG ; Jae Won YANG ; Won Min HWANG ; Jang-Hee CHO ; Kyung Don YOO ; In O SUN ; Gang-Jee KO ; Byung Chul YU ; Hyunsuk KIM ; Woo Yeong PARK ; Tae Won LEE ; Dong Jun PARK ; Eunjin BAE ;
Kidney Research and Clinical Practice 2026;45(1):110-119
Background:
With the aging population and advancements in medical care worldwide, the number of older patients with end-stage kidney disease continues to rise. This study aimed to identify factors associated with osteoporosis and osteopenia in older patients undergoing incident hemodialysis and assess their impact on mortality.
Methods:
We analyzed a large multicenter retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥70 years undergoing incident hemodialysis to identify factors associated with osteoporosis using logistic regression analysis and to assess the association of death with osteoporosis and osteopenia using Cox multivariable analysis.
Results:
Among 710 patients, 39.0% and 19.6% had osteoporosis and osteopenia, respectively. Osteoporosis was significantly associated with female sex, a history of fractures, and the absence of phosphate binder use. During a median follow-up of 36.8 months, 348 participants (58.8%) died. Mortality rates were the highest in the osteoporosis group (79.8%), followed by the osteopenia (77.2%) and normal bone mineral density (BMD) groups (35.2%). Cox regression analysis revealed that even after adjusting for covariates, the osteoporosis group was significantly associated with a higher mortality risk than the normal BMD group. Osteoporosis at the start of hemodialysis was significantly associated with higher mortality.
Conclusion
We should consider the importance of bone health in patients undergoing incident hemodialysis and pay attention to the use of phosphate binders and fracture prevention.
2.Impact of obesity on renal function in elderly Korean adults: a national population-based cohort study
Jihyun YANG ; Hui Seung LEE ; Chi-Yeon LIM ; Hyunsuk KIM ; Sungjin CHUNG ; Soon Hyo KWON ; Jang-Hee CHO ; Kyung Don YOO ; Woo Yeong PARK ; In O SUN ; Byung Chul YU ; Gang-Jee KO ; Jae Won YANG ; Won Min HWANG ; Sang Heon SONG ; Sung Joon SHIN ; Yu Ah HONG ; Eunjin BAE ; Young Youl HYUN
Kidney Research and Clinical Practice 2026;45(1):65-76
Background:
Obesity is a well-known risk factor for chronic kidney disease and its progression. However, the impact of obesity on the renal function of the elderly population is uncertain. We investigated the association between obesity and renal outcomes in the elderly.
Methods:
We analyzed 130,504 participants from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-Senior cohort. Obesity was classified according to body mass index (BMI), sex-specific waist circumference (WC), and the presence of metabolic syndrome. The primary outcome was renal function decline, defined as a decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 50% from baseline or new-onset end-stage renal disease.
Results:
During a follow-up period of 559,531.1 person-years (median, 4.3 years), 2,486 participants (19.0%; incidence rate of 4.44 per 1,000 person-years) showed renal function decline. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model revealed that BMI/WC was not associated with renal function decline. However, the group with metabolic syndrome had a significantly increased risk of renal function decline compared to the group without metabolic syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.36). Compared with the non-metabolic syndrome group, the adjusted HRs (95% CI) for participants with one through five components were 0.96 (0.84–1.11), 1.10 (0.96–1.27), 1.24 (1.06–1.45), 1.37 (1.12–1.66), and 1.99 (1.42–2.79), respectively (p for trend < 0.001).
Conclusion
In elderly Korean adults, metabolic syndrome and the number of its components were associated with a higher risk of renal function decline, but BMI or WC was not significant.
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.Prediction model for 6-month mortality in incident older hemodialysis patients in South Korea
Woo Yeong PARK ; Eunjin BAE ; Hui-Seung LEE ; Chi-Yeon LIM ; Jang-Hee CHO ; Byung Chul YU ; Miyeun HAN ; Sang Heon SONG ; Gang-Jee KO ; Jae Won YANG ; Sungjin CHUNG ; Yu Ah HONG ; Young Youl HYUN ; In O SUN ; Hyunsuk KIM ; Won Min HWANG ; Sung Joon SHIN ; Soon Hyo KWON ; Kyung Don YOO ;
Kidney Research and Clinical Practice 2025;44(4):664-678
Early mortality following hemodialysis initiation hinders survival improvement in older patients. This study aimed to develop a clinical risk model for predicting 6-month mortality after dialysis initiation in older Korean hemodialysis patients. Methods: We analyzed data from incident hemodialysis patients aged >70 years from the Korean Society of Geriatric Nephrology (KSGN) database. A prediction model was developed using multivariate logistic regression analysis and externally validated with independent datasets. Results: Among 1,751 incident hemodialysis patients, the 6-month mortality rate was 15.5%. Using multivariate logistic analysis, we constructed the KSGN score as an independent risk factor for 6-month mortality, and its components and score are as follows: old age at dialysis initiation (≥85 years, score 2); hypertension and renovascular disease as a primary etiology of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) (score 1); malignancy history (yes, score 1); low serum albumin (<3.5 g/dL, score 1); hypertension treatment (yes, score –1); prepared vascular access on maintenance dialysis (arteriovenous fistula/arteriovenous graft, score –3). In the development cohort, the area under the curve (AUC) for the KSGN score was significantly higher than the Alberta Wick’s score (0.707 vs. 0.683, p = 0.001). In the validation cohort, the KSGN score’s performance was comparable to existing models. Conclusion: The KSGN score may be a valuable tool for predicting early mortality after dialysis initiation in older patients with ESKD, aiding in decision-making and management regarding dialysis initiation.
7.Discordance Between Spine-Hip and Paretic-Nonparetic Hip Bone Mineral Density in Hemiplegic Stroke Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Seung Don YOO ; Tae-Woo KIM ; Byung-Mo OH ; Seung Ah LEE ; Chanwoo KIM ; Ho Yeon CHUNG ; Jung Eun SON ; Ji Yeon LEE ; Hyunji LEE ; Hoo Young LEE
Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine 2024;48(6):413-422
Objective:
To identify the prevalence and factors associated with T-score discordance between the spine and hip, as well as between the paretic and non-paretic hips in hemiplegic stroke patients, this study investigated bone mineral density (BMD) patterns. Bone loss predominantly affects the paretic hip after a stroke, and typical clinical assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that scan the lumbar spine (LS) and a single hip may overlook an osteoporosis diagnosis. This oversight could potentially lead to suboptimal treatment for stroke patients.
Methods:
This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 540 patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation between October 2014 and February 2022, who underwent DXA of LS and bilateral hips.
Results:
The prevalence rates of concordance, low LS discordance, and low hip discordance between the LS and hips were 48.2%, 12.2%, and 39.6%, respectively. The discordance rate between bilateral hips was 17.0%. The paretic side had significantly lower total hip T-scores than the non-paretic side (p<0.001). Notably low paretic hip discordance was more prevalent during the chronic phase. DXA scans of the LS and both hips revealed a 0.7%–0.9% higher major discordance compared to LS and single hip DXA scans. The multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between a low paretic hip discordance and cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratio 0.071, 95% confidence interval 0.931–1.003, p<0.05).
Conclusion
Since stroke survivors are at high risk for hip fractures, comprehensive BMD assessments, which include LS and bilateral hips, should be considered for post-stroke osteoporosis care to enhance diagnostic accuracy and timely treatment.
8.Discordance Between Spine-Hip and Paretic-Nonparetic Hip Bone Mineral Density in Hemiplegic Stroke Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Seung Don YOO ; Tae-Woo KIM ; Byung-Mo OH ; Seung Ah LEE ; Chanwoo KIM ; Ho Yeon CHUNG ; Jung Eun SON ; Ji Yeon LEE ; Hyunji LEE ; Hoo Young LEE
Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine 2024;48(6):413-422
Objective:
To identify the prevalence and factors associated with T-score discordance between the spine and hip, as well as between the paretic and non-paretic hips in hemiplegic stroke patients, this study investigated bone mineral density (BMD) patterns. Bone loss predominantly affects the paretic hip after a stroke, and typical clinical assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that scan the lumbar spine (LS) and a single hip may overlook an osteoporosis diagnosis. This oversight could potentially lead to suboptimal treatment for stroke patients.
Methods:
This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 540 patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation between October 2014 and February 2022, who underwent DXA of LS and bilateral hips.
Results:
The prevalence rates of concordance, low LS discordance, and low hip discordance between the LS and hips were 48.2%, 12.2%, and 39.6%, respectively. The discordance rate between bilateral hips was 17.0%. The paretic side had significantly lower total hip T-scores than the non-paretic side (p<0.001). Notably low paretic hip discordance was more prevalent during the chronic phase. DXA scans of the LS and both hips revealed a 0.7%–0.9% higher major discordance compared to LS and single hip DXA scans. The multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between a low paretic hip discordance and cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratio 0.071, 95% confidence interval 0.931–1.003, p<0.05).
Conclusion
Since stroke survivors are at high risk for hip fractures, comprehensive BMD assessments, which include LS and bilateral hips, should be considered for post-stroke osteoporosis care to enhance diagnostic accuracy and timely treatment.
9.Discordance Between Spine-Hip and Paretic-Nonparetic Hip Bone Mineral Density in Hemiplegic Stroke Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Seung Don YOO ; Tae-Woo KIM ; Byung-Mo OH ; Seung Ah LEE ; Chanwoo KIM ; Ho Yeon CHUNG ; Jung Eun SON ; Ji Yeon LEE ; Hyunji LEE ; Hoo Young LEE
Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine 2024;48(6):413-422
Objective:
To identify the prevalence and factors associated with T-score discordance between the spine and hip, as well as between the paretic and non-paretic hips in hemiplegic stroke patients, this study investigated bone mineral density (BMD) patterns. Bone loss predominantly affects the paretic hip after a stroke, and typical clinical assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that scan the lumbar spine (LS) and a single hip may overlook an osteoporosis diagnosis. This oversight could potentially lead to suboptimal treatment for stroke patients.
Methods:
This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 540 patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation between October 2014 and February 2022, who underwent DXA of LS and bilateral hips.
Results:
The prevalence rates of concordance, low LS discordance, and low hip discordance between the LS and hips were 48.2%, 12.2%, and 39.6%, respectively. The discordance rate between bilateral hips was 17.0%. The paretic side had significantly lower total hip T-scores than the non-paretic side (p<0.001). Notably low paretic hip discordance was more prevalent during the chronic phase. DXA scans of the LS and both hips revealed a 0.7%–0.9% higher major discordance compared to LS and single hip DXA scans. The multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between a low paretic hip discordance and cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratio 0.071, 95% confidence interval 0.931–1.003, p<0.05).
Conclusion
Since stroke survivors are at high risk for hip fractures, comprehensive BMD assessments, which include LS and bilateral hips, should be considered for post-stroke osteoporosis care to enhance diagnostic accuracy and timely treatment.
10.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(1):3-106
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail