Objective: Geriatric patients requiring gynecological surgery is increasing worldwide. However, older patients are at higher risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality, particularly cardiopulmonary complications. Laparoscopic surgery is widely used as a minimally invasive method for reducing postoperative morbidities. We compared the outcomes of open and laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries in patients older than 55 years. Methods: We included patients aged >55 years who underwent gynecological surgery at a single tertiary center between 2010 and 2020, excluding vaginal or ovarian cancer surgeries were excluded. Surgical outcomes were compared between the open surgery and laparoscopic groups, with age cutoff was set at 65 years for optimal discriminative power. We performed linear or logistic regression analyses to compare the surgical outcomes according to age and operation type. Results: Among 2,983 patients, 28.6% underwent open surgery and 71.4% underwent laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were better than those of open surgery in all groups. In both the open and laparoscopic surgery groups, the older patients showed worse overall surgical outcomes. However, age-related differences in perioperative outcomes were less severe in the laparoscopic group. In the linear regression analysis, the differences in estimated blood loss, transfusion, and hospital stay between the age groups were smaller in the laparoscopy group. Similar results were observed in cancer-only and benign-only cohorts. Conclusion Although the surgical outcomes were worse in the older patients, the difference between age groups was smaller for laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery offers more advantages and safety in patients aged >65 years.

Purpose: We investigated the treatment outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with recurrent gynecologic cancers. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 20 patients who underwent rechallenge with PD-1 inhibitors for recurrent gynecologic cancers at two tertiary centers between January 2018 and September 2022. Results: The median age of the patients was 56 years (range, 35–79). Seven (35%), 1 (5%), 11 (55%), and 1 (5%) patients presented with cervical, vulvar, ovarian, and endometrial cancers, respectively. Sixteen (80%) patients received pembrolizumab and 4 (20%) received nivolumab at first treatment. Eight (40%) and 12 (60%) patients received pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively, at second treatment. At initial ICI treatment, 1 (5%) and 4 (20%) cases of a complete response (CR) and a partial response (PR) were observed, respectively, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 2.8 months (range, 1.4–49.6). Reasons for first ICI discontinuation were disease progression (n=16), severe adverse events (AEs) (n=2), and treatment withdrawal (n=2). During second ICI treatment, 1 (5%) patient achieved CR, 2 (10%) showed PR, and 5 (25%) experienced stable disease. The median PFS to second ICI was 1.8 months (range, 0.4–10.4). The median overall survival was 21.3 months (range, 10.1–52.7). Neither patient who discontinued ICI treatment due to AEs experienced AE relapse during second ICI treatment. Conclusion These results suggest that responses to ICI rechallenge are not as intolerable as responses to previous ICI. Clinicians should carefully consider rechallenge with PD-1 inhibitors outside of clinical trials until there are sufficient data to routinely support this practice.

Objective: Fenbendazole (FZ) has potential anti-cancer effects, but its poor water solubility limits its use for cancer therapy. In this study, we investigated the anti-cancer effect of FZ with different drug delivery methods on epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in both in vitro and in vivo models. Methods: EOC cell lines were treated with FZ and cell proliferation was assessed. The effect of FZ on tumor growth in cell line xenograft mouse model of EOC was examined according to the delivery route, including oral and intraperitoneal administration. To improve the systemic delivery of FZ by converting fat-soluble drugs to hydrophilic, we prepared FZ-encapsulated poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) acid (PLGA) nanoparticles (FZ-PLGA-NPs). We investigated the preclinical efficacy of FZ-PLGA-NPs by analyzing cell proliferation, apoptosis, and in vivo models including cell lines and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) of EOC. Results: FZ significantly decreased cell proliferation of both chemosensitive and chemoresistant EOC cells. However, in cell line xenograft mouse models, there was no effect of oral FZ treatment on tumor reduction. When administered intraperitoneally, FZ was not absorbed but aggregated in the intraperitoneal space. We synthesized FZ-PLGA-NPs to obtain water solubility and enhance drug absorption. FZ-PLGA-NPs significantly decreased cell proliferation in EOC cell lines. Intravenous injection of FZ-PLGA-NP in xenograft mouse models with HeyA8 and HeyA8-MDR significantly reduced tumor weight compared to the control group. FZ-PLGA-NPs showed anti-cancer effects in PDX model as well. Conclusion FZ-incorporated PLGA nanoparticles exerted significant anti-cancer effects in EOC cells and xenograft models including PDX. These results warrant further investigation in clinical trials.

Objective: The recently updated World Health Organization classification divides endocervical adenocarcinomas (ADCs) into human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated (HPVA) and HPV-independent (HPVI) ADCs. This study aimed to investigate the differences in the clinical features and treatment outcomes between patients with HPVA and HPVI. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records and pathology slides of 123 patients with endocervical ADC who underwent radical hysterectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy. Tumor characteristics, patterns of failure, and survival outcomes were compared between HPVA and HPVI ADCs. Results: Eighty-one (65.9%) and 42 (34.1%) patients were diagnosed with HPVA and HPVI ADCs, respectively. HPVI ADC showed more frequent positive vaginal resection margin (VRM) and peritoneal seeding than HPVA ADC. After a median follow-up of 58.1 months, local recurrence and distant metastasis were more frequently observed in HPVI ADC than in HPVA ADC. Both local recurrence-free survival (77.3% vs. 91.8%) and distant metastasis-free survival (50.1% vs. 73.7%) rates of HPVI ADC were lower than those of HPVA ADC. Disease-free survival was not significantly different between HPVI and HPVA ADCs. Conclusion We demonstrated that HPVI ADC exhibited higher rates of VRM involvement and peritoneal seeding than those of HPVA ADC, resulting in higher rates of local recurrence and distant metastasis. Further studies with larger populations are warranted to explore optimal treatment strategies based on the histological subtypes of endocervical ADC.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.