1.The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0
Hyo Seon RYU ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Dong Hyun KANG ; Yoo-Kang KWAK ; Han Deok KWAK ; Yoon-Hye KWON ; Dalyon KIM ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Ji Hun KIM ; Jin Won KIM ; Tae Hyung KIM ; Hae Young KIM ; Soo Min NAM ; Gyoung Tae NOH ; Jun Woo BONG ; Nak Song SUNG ; Seon Hui SHIN ; Kil-Yong LEE ; Sung Chul LEE ; Sea-Won LEE ; Jung Won LEE ; Jong Min LEE ; Myung Hoon IHN ; Joo Han LIM ; Woong Bae JI ; Dae Hee PYO ; Young Ki HONG ; Jung-Myun KWAK ;
Annals of Coloproctology 2026;42(1):4-33
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.
2.Current Clinical Perspectives on Rosacea Management: Insights From a Korean Multicenter Expert Opinion Survey
Bo Ri KIM ; Sejin OH ; Ju Hee HAN ; Jimyung SEO ; Hyun-Min SEO ; Soon-Hyo KWON ; Hoon CHOI ; Jung U SHIN ; Jae We CHO ; Boncheol Leo GOO ; Jung-Im NA ; Dong Hun LEE ; Chun Pill CHOI ; HaeWoong LEE ; Joo Yeon KO ; Hwa Jung RYU ; Nark-Kyoung RHO ; Hyunjo KIM ; Ga-Young LEE ; Jong Hee LEE ; Nala SHIN ; Sang Ju LEE ; Suk Bae SEO ; Geun Soo LEE ; Hei Sung KIM ; Chang-Hun HUH
Annals of Dermatology 2026;38(1):42-50
Background:
Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities.
Objective:
To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use.
Methods:
A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed.
Results:
Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches.
Conclusion
Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.
3.Eligibility and causes of disqualification among living liver donor candidates: A single-center analysis of 991 candidates
Eun-Ju NAM ; Jong-Hyun KIM ; Hae-In SHIN ; Young-In YOON ; Deok-Bog MOON ; Ki-Hun KIM ; Tae-Yong HA ; Gi-Won SONG ; Dong-Hwan JUNG ; Gil-Chun PARK ; Shin HWANG ; Sung-Gyu LEE
Annals of Liver Transplantation 2026;6(1):17-24
Background:
A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression.
Results:
Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated.
Conclusion
In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.
4.Effects of the timing of testicular sperm retrieval on intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes
Tae Ho HWANG ; Jae Kyun PARK ; Dong Hyuk SHIN ; Won Hee LEE ; Ye Eun KIM ; Yohan HEO ; Tae Ho LEE ; Seung-Ryeol LEE ; Seung-Hun SONG
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 2026;53(2):115-120
Objective:
This study aimed to evaluate reproductive outcomes according to the timing of testicular sperm retrieval.
Methods:
The study included 282 infertile couples divided into three groups: group A (freeze-thawed testicular sperm extraction [TESE] sperm, n=233), group B (fresh TESE sperm collected 1 day before ovum pickup, n=22), and group C (fresh TESE sperm collected on the same day as ovum pickup, n=27). The indications for TESE were surgically uncorrectable azoospermia or ejaculation failure, often accompanied by medical comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus and spinal cord injury. The outcome parameters assessed were fertilization rates, embryo quality, and clinical pregnancy rates.
Results:
The mean paternal age was 36.8±5.7 years, and the mean maternal age was 32.6±3.5 years. The mean duration of infertility was 2.9±1.8 years. The fertilization rates were 70.7%, 78.9%, and 73.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p=0.047). The percentages of good-quality embryos were 68.2%, 65.3%, and 48.4%, respectively (p=0.007); specifically, the percentage of good-quality embryos was significantly lower in group C compared with the other two groups. Clinical pregnancy rates per transfer were similar at 51.1%, 50.0%, and 48.1% (p=0.958), with no differences observed in miscarriage rates.
Conclusion
Testicular sperm retrieval can be safely performed 1 day before ovum pickup, resulting in favorable fertility outcomes.
5.Early Administration of Nelonemdaz May Improve the Stroke Outcomes in Patients With Acute Stroke
Jin Soo LEE ; Ji Sung LEE ; Seong Hwan AHN ; Hyun Goo KANG ; Tae-Jin SONG ; Dong-Ick SHIN ; Hee-Joon BAE ; Chang Hun KIM ; Sung Hyuk HEO ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Yeong Bae LEE ; Eung Gyu KIM ; Man Seok PARK ; Hee-Kwon PARK ; Jinkwon KIM ; Sungwook YU ; Heejung MO ; Sung Il SOHN ; Jee Hyun KWON ; Jae Guk KIM ; Young Seo KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Yang-Ha HWANG ; Keun Hwa JUNG ; Soo-Kyoung KIM ; Woo Keun SEO ; Jung Hwa SEO ; Joonsang YOO ; Jun Young CHANG ; Mooseok PARK ; Kyu Sun YUM ; Chun San AN ; Byoung Joo GWAG ; Dennis W. CHOI ; Ji Man HONG ; Sun U. KWON ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(2):279-283
6.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
7.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
8.Clinical practice guidelines for ovarian cancer: an update to the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines
Banghyun LEE ; Suk-Joon CHANG ; Byung Su KWON ; Joo-Hyuk SON ; Myong Cheol LIM ; Yun Hwan KIM ; Shin-Wha LEE ; Chel Hun CHOI ; Kyung Jin EOH ; Jung-Yun LEE ; Yoo-Young LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e69-
We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.
9.Early Administration of Nelonemdaz May Improve the Stroke Outcomes in Patients With Acute Stroke
Jin Soo LEE ; Ji Sung LEE ; Seong Hwan AHN ; Hyun Goo KANG ; Tae-Jin SONG ; Dong-Ick SHIN ; Hee-Joon BAE ; Chang Hun KIM ; Sung Hyuk HEO ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Yeong Bae LEE ; Eung Gyu KIM ; Man Seok PARK ; Hee-Kwon PARK ; Jinkwon KIM ; Sungwook YU ; Heejung MO ; Sung Il SOHN ; Jee Hyun KWON ; Jae Guk KIM ; Young Seo KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Yang-Ha HWANG ; Keun Hwa JUNG ; Soo-Kyoung KIM ; Woo Keun SEO ; Jung Hwa SEO ; Joonsang YOO ; Jun Young CHANG ; Mooseok PARK ; Kyu Sun YUM ; Chun San AN ; Byoung Joo GWAG ; Dennis W. CHOI ; Ji Man HONG ; Sun U. KWON ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(2):279-283
10.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail