1.Predictive Value of Insertion/Deletion Rate in Patients With Gastric Cancer Treated With Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy
Hyung-Don KIM ; Hyungeun LEE ; Sun Young LEE ; Yuna LEE ; Jaewon HYUNG ; Meesun MOON ; Jinho SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Min-Hee RYU
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2026;26(2):219-231
Purpose:
Immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer; however, predictive biomarkers for optimal patient selection remain unsatisfactory. This study was aimed at evaluating the predictive value of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and insertion/deletion (Indel) rate in patients with gastric cancer treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy.
Materials and Methods:
This retrospective study included 132 patients with gastric cancer treated with first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 185 patients treated with chemotherapy alone, all of whom had next-generation sequencing data available. The TMB and Indel cut-offs were set at 15.63 mutations per megabase and 18.19%, respectively, as determined based on their ability to best distinguish progression-free survival (PFS) among the patients who received nivolumab plus chemotherapy.
Results:
PFS was favorable for nivolumab and chemotherapy than for chemotherapy alone in both the high and low TMB groups; nevertheless, survival benefits were observed only in the high Indel group. Among the subgroups defined based on both TMB and Indel rates, the high TMB and high Indel rate subgroup showed the greatest benefit from nivolumab plus chemotherapy compared with that from chemotherapy alone. The benefit of this subgroup remained significant in patients with proficient mismatch repair (MMR) tumors, whose survival outcomes were comparable to those of patients with deficient MMR tumors.Among patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, high TMB and Indel rate were independently associated with favorable survival outcomes.
Conclusions
Thus, Indel rate, particularly in combination with TMB, may be a promising predictive biomarker for gastric cancer. However, further validation of their predictive value is warranted.
2.Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor:History, Molecular Subtypes, and Risk Stratification
In Hye SONG ; Soomin AHN ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jeong-Hyeon JO ; Jinho SHIN ; Min-Hee RYU ; Young Soo PARK
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2026;26(2):202-218
The gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is one of the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Between the 1990s and early 2000s, GIST was identified as a tumor characterized by KIT or PDGFRA mutations, resulting in imatinib being established as an effective targeted therapy. However, with advances in molecular diagnostics, approximately 10%–15% of GISTs have been reported to harbor alternative mutations, such as those in the succinate dehydrogenase subunit genes and BRAF, leading to the development of additional targeted therapies. GISTs exhibit a wide spectrum of clinical behaviors, ranging from indolent to highly aggressive, prompting the development of diverse risk classification systems. However, multiple systems remain in use, leading to inconsistent pathologic reports. Moreover, the mitotic counting method—a key factor in risk stratification—has become a major source of confusion among pathologists owing to the adoption of digital pathology and discrepancies between updated international guidelines and outdated reimbursement requirements. These inconsistencies have hindered pathologic reporting and communication between pathologists and clinicians. This review comprehensively overviews the historical background, molecular subtypes, and risk classification systems of GIST, focusing on evolving issues in mitotic rate evaluation and the application of risk classification systems in clinical practice.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
4.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
5.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
6.Could Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy-Assisted Thoracic Interbody Fusion Be the Answer for Multiple Recurrences of Postoperative Thoracic Epidural Hematoma After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression Surgery? A Case Report and Technical Note
Piyush W. GADEGONE ; Ji Soo HA ; Shreenidhi KULKARNI ; Do-Hyoung KIM ; Chang-Wook KIM ; Rajendra SAKHREKAR ; Hee-Don HAN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique 2025;10(Suppl 2):S261-S269
Postoperative thoracic epidural hematoma (PTEH) is a rare and complex condition that can lead to significant neurological deficits, persistent pain, and reduced functional abilities. Despite advancements in minimally invasive techniques such as unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression, recurrence of PTEH remains a challenging clinical issue. This case report describes the innovative application of unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted thoracic interbody fusion to manage recurrent thoracic idiopathic epidural hematoma. We discuss the surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and potential benefits of this method in reducing recurrence and stabilizing the thoracic spine. A 78-year-old woman without comorbidities underwent UBE decompression for symptomatic D11–12 and L1–2 spinal stenosis. She later developed delayed postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (SEH), causing paraparesis and bowel/bladder dysfunction. Despite 2 successful emergency hematoma evacuations with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed clearance and symptom improvement, recurrences continued to take place, each occurring within shorter intervals. At the third recurrence, occult spinal microinstability was suspected as the cause of persistent bleeding. Unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted thoracic interbody fusion was performed to address this issue. After fusion surgery, the patient experienced no further hematoma recurrences and fully regained neurological and functional capabilities at the 9-month follow-up. While surgical decompression is the standard for SEH, recurrent or delayed postoperative cases require a tailored approach. This case underscores the importance of considering thoracic interbody fusion for recurrent SEH to address microinstability and ongoing bleeding. Unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted fusion offers a minimally invasive yet definitive solution, highlighting the need for individualized surgical strategies to achieve optimal outcomes.
7.Helicobacter pylori Isolation and Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing Using Rapidly Frozen Biopsy Samples
Kee Don CHOI ; Jung Mogg KIM ; Gwang Ho BAIK ; Jun Chul PARK ; Hye-Kyung JUNG ; Han Seung RYU ; Soo-Jeong CHO ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Hwoon-Yong JUNG ;
The Korean Journal of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research 2024;24(4):360-364
Objectives:
To involve institutions without the ability to perform susceptibility testing, long-term storage of tissue sample is critical to isolate the bacteria in a central laboratory. The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of H. pylori isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen biopsy specimens collected from various institutions.
Methods:
Eight institutions located in various regions of Korea participated in the study. Patients requiring upper endoscopy and H. pylori testing were screened. Two biopsy samples were taken from the stomach. One was placed in a sterile Eppendorf tube and then immediately placed in a vacuum bottle containing dry ice, which was stored at -80°C. The other was used in a rapid urease test. Collected samples were delivered to a central laboratory. The bacteria were isolated from the frozen samples under microaerophilic conditions. The agar dilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin for each H. pylori isolate.
Results:
Patients with a positive rapid urease test result (n=113) were enrolled. The mean age was 56.6±12.3 years. The male:female ratio was 64:49. The overall culture success rate was 77.0% (87/113). MIC values were determined using isolated 87 H. pylori strains. Rates of resistance to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin were 23.0%, 25.3%, 28.7%, 1.1%, 33.3%, and 34.5%, respectively.
Conclusions
It is feasible to perform H. pylori isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen and transported biopsy specimens.
8.Helicobacter pylori Isolation and Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing Using Rapidly Frozen Biopsy Samples
Kee Don CHOI ; Jung Mogg KIM ; Gwang Ho BAIK ; Jun Chul PARK ; Hye-Kyung JUNG ; Han Seung RYU ; Soo-Jeong CHO ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Hwoon-Yong JUNG ;
The Korean Journal of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research 2024;24(4):360-364
Objectives:
To involve institutions without the ability to perform susceptibility testing, long-term storage of tissue sample is critical to isolate the bacteria in a central laboratory. The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of H. pylori isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen biopsy specimens collected from various institutions.
Methods:
Eight institutions located in various regions of Korea participated in the study. Patients requiring upper endoscopy and H. pylori testing were screened. Two biopsy samples were taken from the stomach. One was placed in a sterile Eppendorf tube and then immediately placed in a vacuum bottle containing dry ice, which was stored at -80°C. The other was used in a rapid urease test. Collected samples were delivered to a central laboratory. The bacteria were isolated from the frozen samples under microaerophilic conditions. The agar dilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin for each H. pylori isolate.
Results:
Patients with a positive rapid urease test result (n=113) were enrolled. The mean age was 56.6±12.3 years. The male:female ratio was 64:49. The overall culture success rate was 77.0% (87/113). MIC values were determined using isolated 87 H. pylori strains. Rates of resistance to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin were 23.0%, 25.3%, 28.7%, 1.1%, 33.3%, and 34.5%, respectively.
Conclusions
It is feasible to perform H. pylori isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen and transported biopsy specimens.
9.Optimal Diagnostic and Treatment Response Threshold of the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score: A Single-Center Study of 102 Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Kwangbeom PARK ; Bokyung AHN ; Kee Wook JUNG ; Young Soo PARK ; Jun Su LEE ; Ga Hee KIM ; Hee Kyong NA ; Ji Yong AHN ; Jeong Hoon LEE ; Do Hoon KIM ; Kee Don CHOI ; Ho June SONG ; Gin Hyug LEE ; Hwoon-Yong JUNG
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2024;30(4):430-436
Background/Aims:
The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE.
Methods:
Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index.
Results:
Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83).
Conclusions
The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.
10.The insert and revolve technique: a novel approach for inserting cages during unilateral biportal endoscopic assisted fusion surgery for effective spinal alignment restoration
Ji Soo HA ; Shreenidhi KULKARNI ; Do-Hyoung KIM ; Chang-Wook KIM ; Rajendra SAKHREKAR ; Hee-Don HAN
Asian Spine Journal 2024;18(4):514-521
Methods:
This study included 104 patients who underwent ULIF using the “insert and revolve technique” between July 2019 and September 2022. The patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified McNab’s criteria. Changes in segmental lordosis (SL), intervertebral disc height (IVDH), segmental coronal alignment (SCA), cage subsidence, and fusion grade were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-up.
Results:
The VAS scores for leg and back pain and ODI score showed significant improvement. Based on the Macnab’s criteria, 97 patients showed excellent outcomes and seven demonstrated good outcomes at 12 months. The mean IVDH increased from 6.3±2 to 10±2.1 mm immediately after surgery and 10±1.1 mm at 6 months. SL improved from 9.3°±11.5° to 17.78°±8.1°, while SCA improved from 7.7°±2.1° to 3.4°±1.2° at 1 year. Moreover, 92 and 11 patients showed grade 1 and 2 fusion, respectively, according to the Bridwell grading at 1 year.
Conclusions
The “insert and revolve technique” facilitates the successful insertion of large cages, contributing to the restoration of disc height and coronal and sagittal spinal correction with favorable fusion rates.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail