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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background: A decline in masticatory function may indicate brain dysfunction related to dementia, but the relationship between masticatory function and dementia risk remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether masticatory function is associated with the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Methods: Data were obtained from the nationwide prospective cohort study of randomly sampled community-dwelling Koreans aged ≥ 60 years. The 5,064 non-demented participants, whose number of chewing cycles per bite was assessed by clinical interview, were followed for 8 years with biennial assessments of cognitive performance and clinical diagnoses of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Structural brain magnetic resonance imaging was collected from a subset of cohort participants and their spouses for imaging analyses. Results: Males who chewed ≥ 30 cycles/bite had faster decline in global cognition and memory function and were at higher risk for incident all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18–7.18) and AD (HR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.14–9.11) compared to males with less than 10 cycles/bite. Additionally, increased chewing cycles in males were associated with reduced brain volume, particularly in regions involved in compensatory cognitive control of mastication. There was no significant association between chewing cycles and the risk of dementia or brain volume in females. Conclusion Older men who frequently chew their meals could be considered a notable population at risk for dementia who should be carefully assessed for their cognitive trajectories.