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.

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.

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.

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.

Background: Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) toxicity is a significant cause of graft dysfunction in kidney transplant recipients, yet distinguishing it from acute rejection (AR) and acute tubular necrosis (ATN) remains challenging. This study investigated the use of urinary mRNA biomarkers as a noninvasive tool for identifying CNI toxicity. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 110 kidney transplant recipients and classified them into four groups based on pathological findings: stable graft function (n=35), CNI toxicity (n=25), AR (n=30), and ATN (n=20). Candidate biomarkers were selected using the GEO database. Urinary mRNA was extracted from cell pellets, reverse-transcribed, and quantified by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results: Estimated glomerular filtration rates were comparable among the CNI toxicity, AR, and ATN groups. Four transcripts (LTF, NNMT, WFDC2, and HIF1A) were identified as candidate biomarkers. Urinary mRNA levels of LTF, NNMT, and HIF1A were significantly lower in the CNI toxicity group than the AR group. NNMT and HIF1A levels were also significantly lower than those observed in the ATN group. In contrast, WFDC2 levels did not differ significantly across groups. A three-gene signature (LTF, NNMT, and HIF1A) effectively differentiated CNI toxicity from AR and ATN (area under the curve [AUC], 0.867;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.787–0.947) and significantly enhanced the diagnostic performance of the clinical variable-based model (AUC increased from 0.776; 95% CI, 0.660–0.892, to 0.934; 95% CI, 0.881–0.986). Conclusions Urinary mRNA levels of LTF, NNMT, and HIF1A may serve as useful biomarkers for identifying CNI toxicity in kidney transplant recipients with graft dysfunction.

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.

Background/Aims: The recent update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease initiative has added normal growth in children as an intermediate target in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. We aimed to investigate factors associated with reaching midparental height (MPH) in patients diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease in childhood and the adolescent period. Methods: This multicenter retrospective observational study included pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease that had reached adult height. Factors associated with reaching MPH were investigated by logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 166 patients were included in this study (128 Crohn’s disease and 38 ulcerative colitis). Among them, 54.2% (90/166) had reached their MPH. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that height Z-score at diagnosis and MPH Z-score were independently associated with reaching MPH (odds ratio [OR], 8.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.44 to 17.90;p<0.001 and OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.24; p<0.001, respectively). According to the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the optimal cutoff level of "height Z-score at diagnosis minus MPH Z-score" that was associated with reaching MPH was –0.01 with an area under the curve of 0.889 (95% CI [0.835 to 0.944], sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 84.2%, positive predictive value 87.0%, negative predictive value 86.5%, p<0.001). Conclusions Height Z-score at diagnosis and MPH Z-score were the only factors associated with reaching MPH. Efforts should be made to restore growth in pediatric patients who present with a negative “height Z-score at diagnosis minus MPH Z-score.”

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.

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.