Purpose: Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) represents a severe postoperative complication following total or proximal gastrectomy. Treatment strategies include conservative management, endoscopic interventions, and surgery; however, comparative data remain limited. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of different strategies to identify the optimal approach based on anastomotic defect size. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 100 patients diagnosed with EJAL between January 2015 and October 2024. Patients were categorized into four groups:conservative management, endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (E-VAC), other endoscopic treatments, and surgery. The primary outcomes were leakage duration and length of hospital stay after EJAL diagnosis, whereas the secondary outcome was time to C-reactive protein normalization. Subgroup analyses were performed according to defect size. Results: Among the 100 patients, 76 were male and 24 were female, with a mean age of 65.7 years. Conservative treatment was the most common modality (53%), followed by other endoscopic treatments (19%), E-VAC (14%), and surgery (14%). In patients with a defect size <1 cm, conservative treatment was associated with significantly shorter leakage duration (P=0.035) and earlier resumption of diet (P=0.029) compared with endoscopic treatment.Among those with defects ≥2 cm, E-VAC demonstrated the most favorable median outcomes across all variables; however, statistical significance was not achieved because of the small sample size. Conclusions Conservative treatment appears to be the most effective treatment strategy for EJAL with anastomotic defects <1 cm. For larger defects (≥2 cm), E-VAC may offer clinical benefit, although further studies are needed to confirm its efficacy. These findings highlight the importance of individualized treatment selection based on defect size.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Purpose: Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023. Materials and Methods: The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys. Results: Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively. Conclusions The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Purpose: This study aimed to define an optimal age cutoff for early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) and compare its characteristics with those of late-onset gastric cancer (LOGC) using nationwide survey data. Methods: Using data from a nationwide survey, this comprehensive population-based study analyzed data spanning 3 years (2009, 2014, and 2019). The joinpoint analysis and interrupted time series (ITS) methodology were employed to identify age cutoffs for EOGC based on the sex ratio and tumor histology. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the EOGC and LOGC groups. Results: The age cutoff for defining EOGC was suggested to be 50 years, supported by joinpoint and ITS analyses. Early gastric cancer was predominantly present in the EOGC and LOGC groups. Patients with EOGC comprised 20.3% of the total study cohort and demonstrated a more advanced disease stage compared to patients with LOGC. However, patients with EOGC underwent more minimally invasive surgeries, experienced shorter hospital stays, and had lower postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Conclusion This study proposes an age of ≤50 years as a criterion for defining EOGC and highlights its features compared to LOGC. Further research using this criterion should guide tailored treatment strategies and improve outcomes for young patients with gastric cancer.

Purpose: Multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) in gastric cancer is an effective approach for establishing treatment plans.However, the appropriateness of using “ratio of MDT” as an item for evaluating the adequacy of gastric cancer treatment in Korea has not been previously researched. The purpose of this study is to verify whether the “ratio of MDT” is appropriate as an item for gastric cancer adequacy evaluation from the surgeon’s perspective. Methods: This study involved 142 patients who received MDT at our hospital between December 2015 and January 2023.Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date when gastric cancer adequacy evaluation was implemented; there were 71 patients before and after the evaluation was conducted, respectively. Based on electronic medical records, the initial plan prepared before the MDT clinic and the final plan prepared after the clinic were compared to determine whether the plan was changed. Results: The average age of patients who received MDT before and after the evaluation was 64.8 and 62.2 years, respectively. Overall, 50 and 21 patients were male (70.4%) and female (29.6%), respectively, in both groups. Before the evaluation, 26 patients (36.6%) who received MDT changed their treatment plans after visiting the clinic, and 15 patients (21.1%) who received MDT after the evaluation had their treatment plans modified. Groups who received MDT and changes in treatment plans were significantly correlated (P = 0.042). Conclusion Our findings suggest that including the “ratio of MDT” as an item of gastric cancer adequacy evaluation needs reassessment.