Metastatic spine cancer (MSC), a common complication of advanced malignancies, poses significant challenges due to pain, neurological deficits, and mechanical instability. While radiation therapy is a cornerstone of treatment, the role of spine surgery is evolving, fueled by advances in surgical techniques and radiation modalities such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). This review examines the evolving role of spine surgery in MSC management, focusing on separation surgery, surgical innovations, and future directions. The treatment paradigm for MSC shifted with the advent of SBRT, which delivers high-dose precision radiation, improving local control even in radioresistant tumors. This advancement enabled the adoption of separation surgery, a technique aimed at creating a safe margin between the tumor and neural structures without extensive tumor resection, followed by SBRT to achieve tumor regression. Separation surgery reduces morbidity, shortens operative times, and achieves comparable local control rates to traditional corpectomy procedures. Innovations like minimally invasive surgery, stereotactic navigation, and cement-augmented instrumentation have improved surgical safety and outcomes. Emerging technologies, such as machine learning for predictive modeling and augmented reality for surgical navigation, hold potential for improving decision-making and procedural accuracy. Spine surgery remains integral to MSC treatment, especially for high-grade metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and mechanical instability. Integrating advanced technologies and multidisciplinary collaboration is key to optimizing patient outcomes. Comprehensive, patient-centered strategies addressing both oncological and mechanical aspects can improve survival and quality of life for patients with MSC.

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: Radical cystectomy (RC) is associated with substantial postoperative morbidity, and unplanned readmission remains common despite advances in perioperative management. However, the association between postoperative readmission due to complications and oncologic outcomes after RC for bladder cancer has not been clearly defined. We evaluated the impact of postoperative readmission on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) after RC for bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3,972 patients who underwent RC for bladder cancer in a multicenter cohort. Postoperative readmission was defined as unplanned hospitalization within 90 days postsurgery due to surgery-related complications. Survival outcomes were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of OS and CSS. Results: Among the study population, 916 patients (23.1%) experienced postoperative readmission. Baseline and perioperative characteristics were generally comparable between patients with and without readmission. Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated significantly worse OS and CSS among patients who experienced postoperative readmission (both log-rank p<0.001). In multivariable analyses adjusting for clinicopathological factors, postoperative readmission remained independently associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.654; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.464–1.868; p<0.001) and CSS (HR, 1.761; 95% CI, 1.509–2.055; p<0.001). Conclusion Postoperative readmission within 90 days after RC was independently associated with inferior long-term oncologic outcomes. These findings suggest the importance of strategies aimed at preventing postoperative complications and subsequent readmission.

Background: Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) alters spinal anatomy, impacting the feasibility and dimensions of surgical corridors for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). This study aimed to compare the morphometric characteristics of OLIF corridors between patients with left- and right-apex curves, focusing on corridor dimensions, psoas muscle asymmetry, and segmental artery positioning. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 80 patients with DLS (left apex: n = 43; right apex: n = 37) was conducted. Corridor angles and distances, psoas muscle cross-sectional areas, and segmental artery locations were measured at L2–3, L3–4, and L4–5 using T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Multivariate regression analysis identified key anatomical predictors of corridor variation at L2–3. Results: Regardless of the apex direction, the left-sided corridor was consistently larger across all levels. Corridor angles were significantly greater on the left side in both groups (left apex: L2–3, 39.7° vs. 13.5°; L3–4, 38.3° vs. 11.9°; L4–5, 38.6° vs. 6.9°;right apex: L2–3, 53.7° vs. 18.1°; L3–4, 43.1° vs. 18.5°; L4–5, 28.6° vs. 11.9°). Psoas muscle areas were larger on the concave side of the curve (left apex: 125.7 mm2 vs. 67.9 mm2 ; right apex: 125.4 mm2 vs. 77.4 mm2 ). Segmental artery positioning exhibited curvedependent asymmetry at L2–3 (left apex: 8.8 mm vs. 7.9 mm; right apex: 9.6 mm vs. 8.0 mm). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that in the left apex group, the left psoas area (β = −0.132) and segmental artery distances were significant predictors of corridor angle variation (R2 = 0.517). In the right apex group, psoas asymmetry (β = 0.123) and sagittal alignment (β = −0.851) were associated with corridor differences. Conclusions OLIF corridors in DLS patients demonstrate consistent left-sided dominance, regardless of apex direction. Psoas muscle asymmetry and segmental artery positioning contribute to corridor variations. While the left-sided approach remains standard, right-sided access may be feasible in select cases, particularly at L4–5. These findings provide insights for optimizing preoperative planning and surgical decision-making in DLS patients.

Background/Aims: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. We investigated genomic determinants of clinical benefit from gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in advanced BTC. Methods: Clinical and genomic data using TruSight Oncology 500 were analyzed from patients treated with GAP (N=198) or GC (N=89) as first-line therapy. Results: With a median follow-up of 33.0 months, GAP modestly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.764; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.591–0.989) without significant overall survival (OS) difference compared to GC. Genomic profiling revealed frequent alterations in TP53 (35.2%), KRAS (16.4%), SMAD4 (10.5%), and TNFRSF14 (10.5%), involving RTK/RAS (44.3%), TP53 (41.8%), and PI3K (20.2%) pathways. Single-gene mutations did not predict treatment benefit. However, pathway-level analysis identified PI3K pathway activation as significantly associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.148; 95% CI 1.478–3.124) and OS (HR 2.096; 95% CI 1.413–3.109) in patients receiving GAP, an effect not observed with GC. Importantly, GAP conferred clinical benefit only in patients without PI3K pathway activation, while no survival advantage was seen in those with such alterations (Pinteraction=0.023 for PFS, Pinteraction=0.003 for OS). Similar results were obtained in the independent validation cohort treated with GAP (N=103) or GC (N=64) for BTC. Conclusions Genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing identified PI3K pathway activation as key molecular determinant that differentiates patient outcomes between GAP and GC treatments in advanced BTC.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.