Flexible gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a fundamental skill in surgical practice, offering both diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities for a wide range of GI diseases. In Korea, the incidence estimates for gastric and colorectal cancers rank among the highest worldwide, underscoring the critical need for well-trained endoscopists. Surgeons play a pivotal role in managing GI diseases, reinforcing the necessity of systematic and comprehensive endoscopic education.This paper reviews the status of surgical endoscopy education in Korea, focusing on its historical evolution, structured training programs for residents and fellows, certification processes, and continuing medical education initiatives. Despite significant advancements led by organizations such as the Korean Surgical Society, challenges persist, including disparities in training opportunities across institutions and limited access to advanced therapeutic endoscopy. To address these issues, strategic recommendations include standardizing educational curricula, optimizing residency workloads for dedicated endoscopy training, enhancing simulation-based education through high-fidelity simulators and artificial intelligence, and fostering international collaboration to encourage global best practices.Implementing these strategies will strengthen Korea’s GI endoscopy education system,ensuring that future surgeons are well-prepared to meet the evolving demands of patient care.

Flexible gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a fundamental skill in surgical practice, offering both diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities for a wide range of GI diseases. In Korea, the incidence estimates for gastric and colorectal cancers rank among the highest worldwide, underscoring the critical need for well-trained endoscopists. Surgeons play a pivotal role in managing GI diseases, reinforcing the necessity of systematic and comprehensive endoscopic education.This paper reviews the status of surgical endoscopy education in Korea, focusing on its historical evolution, structured training programs for residents and fellows, certification processes, and continuing medical education initiatives. Despite significant advancements led by organizations such as the Korean Surgical Society, challenges persist, including disparities in training opportunities across institutions and limited access to advanced therapeutic endoscopy. To address these issues, strategic recommendations include standardizing educational curricula, optimizing residency workloads for dedicated endoscopy training, enhancing simulation-based education through high-fidelity simulators and artificial intelligence, and fostering international collaboration to encourage global best practices.Implementing these strategies will strengthen Korea’s GI endoscopy education system,ensuring that future surgeons are well-prepared to meet the evolving demands of patient care.

Flexible gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a fundamental skill in surgical practice, offering both diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities for a wide range of GI diseases. In Korea, the incidence estimates for gastric and colorectal cancers rank among the highest worldwide, underscoring the critical need for well-trained endoscopists. Surgeons play a pivotal role in managing GI diseases, reinforcing the necessity of systematic and comprehensive endoscopic education.This paper reviews the status of surgical endoscopy education in Korea, focusing on its historical evolution, structured training programs for residents and fellows, certification processes, and continuing medical education initiatives. Despite significant advancements led by organizations such as the Korean Surgical Society, challenges persist, including disparities in training opportunities across institutions and limited access to advanced therapeutic endoscopy. To address these issues, strategic recommendations include standardizing educational curricula, optimizing residency workloads for dedicated endoscopy training, enhancing simulation-based education through high-fidelity simulators and artificial intelligence, and fostering international collaboration to encourage global best practices.Implementing these strategies will strengthen Korea’s GI endoscopy education system,ensuring that future surgeons are well-prepared to meet the evolving demands of patient care.

OBJECTIVES: We explored whether the association between vitamin B2 and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk could be modified by the MTRR rs1801394 and MTR rs1805087 genetic polymorphisms and examined whether the interaction effects are sex-specific. METHODS: We performed a case-control study involving 1,420 CRC patients and 2,840 controls from the Korea National Cancer Center. Dietary vitamin B2 intake was assessed using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire, and the association with CRC was evaluated. Genotyping was performed using an Illumina MEGA-Expanded Array. For gene-nutrient interaction analysis, pre-matched (1,081 patients and 2,025 controls) and matched (1,081 patients and 1,081 controls) subsets were included. Unconditional and conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A higher intake of vitamin B2 was associated with a significantly lower CRC risk (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.82; p<0.001). Carriers of at least 1 minor allele of MTRR rs1801394 showed a significantly higher CRC risk (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.83). Males homozygous for the major allele (A) of MTRR rs1801394 and who had a higher intake of vitamin B2 had a significantly lower CRC risk (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.54; p-interaction=0.02). In MTR rs1805087, males homozygous for the major allele (A) and who had a higher vitamin B2 intake had a significantly lower CRC risk (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.60; p-interaction<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The MTRR rs1801394 and MTR rs1805087 genetic polymorphisms may modify the association between vitamin B2 and CRC risk, particularly in males. However, further studies are warranted to confirm these interaction results.

Background: The relationship between aspirin usage and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals with both hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM) remains unclear. This study aims to explore the impact of aspirin use on the site-specific CRC risk in patients with metabolic comorbidity. Methods: A case-control study was conducted among 1,331 CRC patients and 2,771 controls recruited from the Nation Cancer Center in Korea. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between aspirin use, metabolic disease status, and site-specific CRC risk. Results: Among the 4,102 participants, 1,191 individuals had neither HTN nor DM, 2,044 were diagnosed with HTN, 203 with DM, and 664 presented with HTN and DM comorbidity.An increasing number of HTN and DM was associated with an increased risk of overall CRC (HTN or DM: OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.39–2.07; HTN and DM: OR, 8.43; 95% CI, 6.37–11.16), while aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk of overall CRC (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21–0.46).These results remained consistent across anatomical sites. Among individuals with HTN and DM comorbidity, aspirin use notably associated with lower risk of overall CRC (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21–0.72), proximal colon (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13–0.71) and rectal cancer (OR, 0.27;95% CI, 0.08–0.97), but not distal colon cancer (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.27–1.24). Conclusion This study showed that aspirin use is negatively associated with overall and sitespecific CRC, even among individuals with HTN and DM comorbidity.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.