Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.

Conventional aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) antagonists, which play a critical role in modulating tumor immune evasion, have shown limited clinical translation due to poor solubility, restricted systemic exposure, and dose-limiting toxicities. To overcome these limitations, we developed SB5794, a phosphate prodrug of the potent AhR antagonist SB2617, designed to improve aqueous solubility and pharmacokinetic properties. SB5794 exhibited markedly enhanced solubility and achieved more than six-fold higher systemic exposure in mice compared with SB2617, while fully retaining its in vitro AhR antagonistic activity. In syngeneic tumor models, SB5794 significantly inhibited tumor growth, and its combination with anti–PD-1 therapy further enhanced antitumor efficacy. However, repeated-dose studies revealed dose-dependent histopathological changes in the gastrointestinal tract, liver, and immune organs. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that SB5794 possesses improved drug-like properties and strong immunomodulatory activity, supporting its potential as a next-generation AhR-targeted immunotherapeutic candidate.

Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a stroke subtype with high mortality and poor functional outcomes. Prompt occlusion of a ruptured aneurysm at an early stage is crucial to prevent rebleeding, which can result in even higher mortality and more severe disabilities. The most critical initial decision in SAH management is the choice of treatment method with surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline to select the optimal initial treatment in patients with SAH. We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer two population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions comparing clipping and coiling. The risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcome and mortality. We included six randomized control trials (RCTs) and 58 observational studies. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that coiling improved functional outcomes compared to clipping (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.97). No significant mortality difference was observed in RCTs (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.91–2.09), but non-RCTs favored clipping for reduced mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69–0.86). However, it is difficult to generalize these findings to all clinical situations, as patients with SAH have a highly variable clinical course. Final treatment decision should be tailored to the individual patient’s status, including aneurysm location, morphology, and the expertise available at the treatment center. Such decisions are best made by specialists such as a board-certified physician and should be explained to the patient and their caregivers, along with the rationale for selecting the most appropriate treatment at the given hospital. Korea has many certified endovascular neurosurgeons, cerebrovascular surgeons, and certified cerebrovascular centers. Proper selection of the most suitable treatment method by certified physicians and centers would greatly benefit patient outcomes and healthcare professionals.

Composite gangliocytomaeuroma and neuroendocrine tumors (CoGNETs) are extremely rare periampullary neoplasms composed of neuroendocrine epithelial, Schwannian spindle, and ganglion cells. Although endoscopic papillectomy or surgery have been used to treat ampullary CoGNETs, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for periampullary lesions has not been previously described. In this study, we present a case of a 53-year-old man referred to our hospital with an incidentally detected subepithelial tumor in the second portion of the duodenum. Endoscopic ultrasound revealed a 13×10-mm homogeneous, hypoechoic, and well-demarcated submucosal mass. UEMR was performed under conscious sedation without submucosal injection, achieving safe en bloc resection within 12 min. Histopathology revealed a 2.0×1.5×1.2-cm lesion composed of mixed neuroendocrine epithelial, Schwannian spindle, and ganglion cells. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for chromogranin A, synaptophysin, CD56, neuron-specific enolase, and S-100, confirming CoGNET with a Ki-67 index of <1% and no lymphovascular or perineural invasion. Follow-up endoscopy 3 months later revealed only a post-resection scar without residual or recurrent tumors. This appears to be the first reported case of periampullary CoGNET successfully treated with UEMR. Therefore, UEMR might represent a safe and effective therapeutic option for selected periampullary subepithelial tumors.

Purpose: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is amplified or overexpressed in various malignancies, including breast and gastric cancers, and is associated with poor prognosis. Although HER2-targeted therapies, such as trastuzumab, improve outcomes in HER2-positive tumors, resistance often develops, and HER2-low tumors remain largely untargeted. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; DS-8201a) is a HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugate with potent activity in HER2-positive and HER2-low tumors. This study evaluates its antitumor mechanisms and efficacy in HER2-positive, HER2-low, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)–associated models. Materials and Methods: Effects of T-DXd were assessed in cancer cell lines with diverse HER2 expression and HRD status. In vivo efficacy was evaluated using a xenograft model derived from HER2-low SNU-601 gastric cancer cells. Results: T-DXd reduced HER2 phosphorylation and downstream signaling (AKT, ERK) in HER2-positive cells. It induced DNA damage accumulation, as evidenced by increased γH2AX and p-Chk1 expression, and triggered apoptosis through cleaved poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and caspase-3 activation, confirmed by annexin V staining. Similar effects were observed in HER2-low cells, with greater sensitivity in HRD cells. In xenografts, T-DXd reduced tumor volume by up to 80% at 4 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. Histological analyses showed decreased Ki-67 and increased apoptosis. Furthermore, T-DXd induced G2/M cell cycle arrest and nuclear anaplasia, suggesting disruption of chromosomal stability as a potential antitumor mechanism. No significant toxicity, including body weight loss, was observed. Conclusion These findings highlight T-DXd’s effectiveness in HER2-low and HRD tumors, supporting its broader clinical application, including strategies targeting DNA damage repair pathways.

Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

This study introduces a novel biportal endoscopic foraminal decompression technique that minimizes bone removal while ensuring safe and effective nerve root decompression. Leveraging the accessory process as a key surgical landmark, this technique enables precise navigation and controlled turn-down of the ligamentum flavum (LF). A key advantage of this technique is its reduced requirement for bone resection, differing from traditional microscopic or uniportal endoscopic surgeries that often necessitate resection of the lateral isthmus or superior articular process. This technique is particularly beneficial for foraminal and extraforaminal herniated nucleus pulposus cases, where bony decompression needs are relatively lower compared to foraminal stenosis. Using the accessory process as a landmark also enhances surgical precision and reduces the risk of nerve root injury, providing a valuable advantage for less experienced surgeons. Despite these advantages, challenges exist, particularly at the L5–S1 level, where the less prominent accessory process and limited workspace due to anatomical constraints can pose difficulties. In cases of severe bony compression, additional bone removal may be necessary to achieve adequate decompression. In conclusion, the Non-facetectomy LF turn-down technique (non-facetectomy foraminal decompression) offers a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative for treating various foraminal pathologies.

Background/Aims: The clinical outcomes and optimal treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in elderly patients are unclear. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with ESCC between December 2008 and February 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into the elderly (n = 52) and younger (n = 427) groups based on age. The clinical outcomes and survival rates, according to treatment, were compared between the two groups. Results: The median ages of the two groups were 82 years (range, 80–95 yr) and 66 years (41–79 yr). The overall survival was slightly lower in the elderly group; however, no statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85−1.91; p = 0.238) was observed. No differences were observed in the outcomes or survival between the two groups according to the treatment method (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, and endoscopic resection). The elderly group was more likely to receive no treatment for cancer (30.8% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.002) than the younger group. However, when there was no treatment for cancer in the elderly group, survival was significantly lower than when treatment was administered (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03−020; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with ESCC aged ≥ 80 years, active cancer treatment was beneficial, and the results did not differ from those of younger patients.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.