Purpose: Patient-derived cells (PDCs) and patient-derived organoids (PDOs) are complementary preclinical models widely used in translational cancer research. However, their molecular and functional differences have not been systematically characterized. This study established and analyzed paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same gastric cancer ascites to delineate platform-dependent molecular and functional profiles. Materials and Methods: Malignant ascites or pleural fluid obtained from 6 patients with advanced gastric cancer were used to establish paired PDC and PDO models. All pairs underwent comprehensive multi-omics profiling, integrating genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data. Phenotypic characterization included morphological, histological, proliferative, and cell cycle analyses. Drug sensitivity assays were performed using 4 chemotherapeutic agents commonly used to treat gastric cancer. Results: The 6 paired PDC and PDO models exhibited distinct morphological characteristics.Whole-genome analyses demonstrated high concordance among primary tumors, PDCs, and PDOs, confirming tumor representation across platforms. Multi-omics profiling identified platform-dependent molecular signatures; PDOs were enriched for extracellular matrix remodeling and stemness, whereas PDCs displayed proliferation- and immune-related signatures. Clinically relevant biomarkers, including HER2 and MET alterations, were concordant with primary tumors. Notably, drug responses differed between platforms and patients, indicating platform-dependent and patient-specific chemosensitivity. Conclusions Paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same patients preserved core patient-specific tumor characteristics while exhibiting distinct molecular and functional profiles. These findings underscore the culture platform as a critical determinant of experimental outcomes and therapeutic responses. Therefore, careful selection of an appropriate preclinical model is essential to accurately address biological questions and optimize precision oncology strategies.

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.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

The omphalomesenteric duct is a link between the primitive midgut and the yolk sac. Normally, the duct obliterates around 6 weeks of gestation, yet varying degrees of incomplete obliteration can take place in 1%–4% of infants. This study described the case of a newborn with a patent omphalomesenteric duct remnant fistula identified at birth with meconium in the umbilical cord. At birth, the infant presented meconium staining and meconium discharged within the umbilical cord. Physical examination and other examinations showed no other specific findings. The omphalomesenteric duct fistula was confirmed through the imaging study (abdominal ultrasonography, gastrografin enema). A surgery was carried out where the remnant was resected. The patient did well and was discharged soon after without complication.
Diatrizoate Meglumine ; Fistula ; Humans ; Infant ; Infant, Newborn ; Meconium ; Parturition ; Physical Examination ; Pregnancy ; Ultrasonography ; Umbilical Cord ; Umbilicus ; Vitelline Duct ; Yolk Sac

PURPOSE: We investigated the clinical characteristics of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction and evaluated the risk factors for hypothyroidism following radiotherapy and chemotherapy in pediatric patients with medulloblastoma or primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET). METHODS: The medical records of 66 patients (42 males) treated for medulloblastoma (n=56) or PNET (n=10) in childhood between January 2000 and December 2014 at Seoul National University Children’s Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 21 patients (18 high-risk medulloblastoma and 3 PNET) underwent high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT/ASCR) RESULTS: During the median 7.6 years of follow-up, 49 patients (74%) developed transient (n=12) or permanent (n=37) hypothyroidism at a median 3.8 years of follow-up (2.9–4.6 years). Younger age ( < 5 years) at radiation exposure (P=0.014 vs. ≥9 years) and HDCT (P=0.042) were significantly predictive for hypothyroidism based on log-rank test. However, sex, type of tumor, and dose of craniospinal irradiation (less vs. more than 23.4 Gy) were not significant predictors. Cox proportional hazard model showed that both younger age (< 5 years) at radiation exposure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.1; vs. ≥9 years; P=0.004) and HDCT (HR, 2.4; P=0.010) were significant predictors of hypothyroidism. CONCLUSIONS: Three-quarters of patients with pediatric medulloblastoma or PNET showed thyroid dysfunction, and over half had permanent thyroid dysfunction. Thus, frequent monitoring of thyroid function is mandatory in all patients treated for medulloblastoma or PNET, especially, in very young patients and/or high-risk patients recommended for HDCT/ASCR.
Craniospinal Irradiation ; Drug Therapy ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Hypothyroidism ; Medical Records ; Medulloblastoma* ; Neuroectodermal Tumors, Primitive* ; Pediatrics ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Radiation Exposure ; Radiotherapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Seoul ; Stem Cells ; Thyroid Gland* ; Thyroid Hormones

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is a rare disease. Early diagnosis and treatment are important, as CVST is potentially fatal. Pregnancy and puerperium are known risk factors for CVST. Here, we report the case of a patient who developed superior sagittal sinus thrombosis after a normal vaginal delivery. A 20-year-old woman presented with a headache and seizures two days after a normal vaginal delivery. Initially, brain computed tomography (CT) showed a subarachnoid hemorrhage in the right parietal lobe and sylvian fissure, together with mild cerebral edema. CT angiography revealed superior sagittal sinus thrombosis. Multiple micro-infarctions were seen on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images. An intravenous infusion of heparin and mannitol was administered immediately. Two days after treatment initiation, the patient showed sudden neurological deterioration, with left-sided hemiplegia. Brain CT showed moderate brain edema and hemorrhagic densities. Emergency decompressive craniectomy was performed, and heparin was re-administered on post-operative day (POD) 1. On POD 9, the patient's mental state improved from stupor to drowsy, but the left-sided hemiplegia persisted. CT angiography showed that the superior sinus thrombosis had decreased. Superior sagittal sinus thrombosis is an uncommon complication, with an unfavorable outcome, after delivery. Timely diagnosis and treatment are important for preventing neurological deterioration.
Angiography ; Brain ; Brain Edema ; Cerebral Infarction ; Decompressive Craniectomy ; Diagnosis ; Early Diagnosis ; Emergencies ; Female ; Headache ; Hemiplegia ; Heparin ; Humans ; Infusions, Intravenous ; Mannitol ; Parietal Lobe ; Postpartum Period* ; Pregnancy ; Rare Diseases ; Risk Factors ; Seizures ; Sinus Thrombosis, Intracranial ; Stupor ; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ; Superior Sagittal Sinus* ; Thrombosis* ; Young Adult

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and analgesic efficacy of polmacoxib 2 mg versus placebo in a superiority comparison or versus celecoxib 200 mg in a noninferiority comparison in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This study was a 6-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind, and parallel-group trial followed by an 18-week, single arm, open-label extension. Of the 441 patients with knee or hip OA screened, 362 were randomized; 324 completed 6 weeks of treatment and 220 completed the extension. Patients were randomized to receive oral polmacoxib 2 mg (n = 146), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 145), or placebo (n = 71) once daily for 6 weeks. During the extension, all participants received open-label polmacoxib 2 mg. The primary endpoint was the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC)-pain subscale score from baseline to week 6. Secondary endpoints included WOMAC-OA Index, OA subscales (pain, stiffness, and physical function) and Physician's and Subject's Global Assessments at weeks 3 and 6. Other outcome measures included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, electrocardiograms, and physical examinations. RESULTS: After 6 weeks, the polmacoxib-placebo treatment difference was −2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], −4.4 to −0.6; p = 0.011) and the polmacoxib-celecoxib treatment difference was 0.6 (CI, −0.9 to 2.2; p = 0.425). According to Physician's Global Assessments, more subjects were “much improved” at week 3 with polmacoxib than with celecoxib or placebo. Gastrointestinal and general disorder AEs occurred with a greater frequency with polmacoxib or celecoxib than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Polmacoxib 2 mg was relatively well tolerated and demonstrated efficacy superior to placebo and noninferior to celecoxib after 6 weeks of treatment in patients with OA. The results obtained during the 18-week trial extension with polmacoxib 2 mg were consistent with those observed during the 6-week treatment period, indicating that polmacoxib can be considered safe for long-term use based on this relatively small scale of study in a Korean population. More importantly, the results of this study showed that polmacoxib has the potential to be used as a pain relief drug with reduced gastrointestinal side effects compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for OA.
Arm ; Celecoxib* ; Electrocardiography ; Hip ; Humans ; Knee ; Ontario ; Osteoarthritis* ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Physical Examination ; Vital Signs