1.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.
2.AFP-PIVKA-II score as a simplified quantifiable surrogate biomarker for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence following living donor liver transplantation
Dae Hyeon WON ; Shin HWANG ; Chul-Soo AHN ; Deok-Bog MOON ; Tae-Yong HA ; Gi-Won SONG ; Dong-Hwan JUNG ; Gil-Chun PARK ; Woo-Hyoung KANG ; Young-In YOON ; Sung-Gyu LEE
Annals of Liver Transplantation 2026;6(1):25-32
Background:
We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).
Methods:
We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score.
Results:
The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar.
Conclusion
The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.
3.Associated factors of osteoporosis and the impact of osteoporosis on all-cause mortality in incident hemodialysis older patients
Seunghye LEE ; Yoomee KANG ; Yu Ah HONG ; Sung Joon SHIN ; Soon Hyo KWON ; Sungjin CHUNG ; Young Youl HYUN ; Sang Heon SONG ; Jae Won YANG ; Won Min HWANG ; Jang-Hee CHO ; Kyung Don YOO ; In O SUN ; Gang-Jee KO ; Byung Chul YU ; Hyunsuk KIM ; Woo Yeong PARK ; Tae Won LEE ; Dong Jun PARK ; Eunjin BAE ;
Kidney Research and Clinical Practice 2026;45(1):110-119
Background:
With the aging population and advancements in medical care worldwide, the number of older patients with end-stage kidney disease continues to rise. This study aimed to identify factors associated with osteoporosis and osteopenia in older patients undergoing incident hemodialysis and assess their impact on mortality.
Methods:
We analyzed a large multicenter retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥70 years undergoing incident hemodialysis to identify factors associated with osteoporosis using logistic regression analysis and to assess the association of death with osteoporosis and osteopenia using Cox multivariable analysis.
Results:
Among 710 patients, 39.0% and 19.6% had osteoporosis and osteopenia, respectively. Osteoporosis was significantly associated with female sex, a history of fractures, and the absence of phosphate binder use. During a median follow-up of 36.8 months, 348 participants (58.8%) died. Mortality rates were the highest in the osteoporosis group (79.8%), followed by the osteopenia (77.2%) and normal bone mineral density (BMD) groups (35.2%). Cox regression analysis revealed that even after adjusting for covariates, the osteoporosis group was significantly associated with a higher mortality risk than the normal BMD group. Osteoporosis at the start of hemodialysis was significantly associated with higher mortality.
Conclusion
We should consider the importance of bone health in patients undergoing incident hemodialysis and pay attention to the use of phosphate binders and fracture prevention.
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.Donor-to-recipient sex match status has no prognostic effect on long-term survival following liver transplantation:a retrospective observational study
Woo-Hyoung KANG ; I-Ji JEONG ; Shin HWANG ; Chul-Soo AHN ; Deok-Bog MOON ; Tae-Yong HA ; Gi-Won SONG ; Dong-Hwan JUNG ; Gil-Chun PARK ; Young-In YOON ; Sung-Gyu LEE
Clinical Transplantation and Research 2026;40(1):76-86
Background:
Studies on whether donor-to-recipient sex match status affects long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) have yielded contradictory results. This study evaluated whether donor-to-recipient sex match status influenced long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high-volume center.
Methods:
The study included 6,664 patients who underwent primary LT between January 2000 and December 2022 at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups according to donor-to-recipient sex match status: male-to-male (n=3,427 [51.4%]), male-to-female (n=1,152 [17.3%]), female-to-male (n=1,385 [20.8%]), and female-to-female (n=700 [10.5%]).
Results:
Regarding clinical characteristics, the four groups differed significantly regarding background liver disease (P<0.001), model for end-stage liver disease score (P<0.001), serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II level (P=0.003), presence of concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; P<0.001), and type of LT (P=0.003). Overall survival (OS) of all LT recipients did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.377). Donor-to-recipient sex match status did not affect long-term OS in either LDLT (P=0.176) or DDLT (P=0.220) groups. In addition, sex match status did not significantly influence posttransplant OS among patients who underwent LDLT without HCC (P=0.464), LDLT with HCC (P=0.236), DDLT without HCC (P=0.338), or DDLT with HCC (P=0.818).
Conclusions
Donor-to-recipient sex match status does not significantly affect posttransplant patient survival or HCC prognosis after LDLT or DDLT.
6.Acute Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: Phenotypes, Management, and Outcomes From Nationwide KorHF III Registry
Huijin LEE ; Eung Ju KIM ; Seong Woo HAN ; Seong-Mi PARK ; Hyung-Seop KIM ; Myung-Chan CHO ; Hyo-Suk AHN ; Mi-Seung SHIN ; Seok-Jae HWANG ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Dong Heon YANG ; Junho HYUN ; Jin Oh CHOI ; Hae-Young LEE ; Byung-Su YOO ; Seok-Min KANG ; Dong-Ju CHOI ; Hyun-Jai CHO ;
International Journal of Heart Failure 2026;8(1):43-55
Background and Objectives:
Clinical characteristics and outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) vary by phenotype. We assessed phenotype-specific features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a nationwide Korean cohort.
Methods:
The Korean Heart Failure III registry prospectively enrolled 7,351 AHF admissions at 47 hospitals. Among 6,777 patients with available left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), phenotypes were defined as heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF, ≤40%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF,41–49%), or preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥50%). The primary endpoint was a 12-month composite of all-cause death or heart transplantation, evaluated from index admission and, among hospital survivors, from discharge. We used inverse probability weighting (multinomial generalized boosted models with stabilized, trimmed weights) and weighted Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs).
Results:
Phenotype distribution was 58.9% HFrEF, 13.6% HFmrEF, and 27.5% HFpEF. Crude 12-month composite rates from index admission were 13.4% (HFrEF), 12.7% (HFmrEF), and 16.8% (HFpEF). After weighting, from index admission, HFmrEF (HR, 0.892; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.731–1.088) and HFpEF (HR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.939–1.291) did not differ from HFrEF; from discharge, HFpEF had modestly higher risk (HR, 1.207; 95% CI, 1.008–1.445) whereas HFmrEF did not (HR, 1.039; 95% CI, 0.844–1.279). Hyponatremia and chronic kidney disease were consistent adverse markers, while angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin II receptor blocker use at discharge was protective.
Conclusions
Across the EF spectrum, phenotypes showed distinct profiles and risk. Postdischarge risk was modestly higher in HFpEF, supporting phenotype-tailored care and systematic discharge optimization in Korean patients with AHF.
7.Comparison of tissue-based and plasma-based testing for EGFR mutation in non–small cell lung cancer patients
Yoon Kyung KANG ; Dong Hoon SHIN ; Joon Young PARK ; Chung Su HWANG ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Jung Hee LEE ; Jee Yeon KIM ; JooYoung NA
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2025;59(1):60-67
Background:
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation testing is crucial for the administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to treat non–small cell lung cancer. In addition to traditional tissue-based tests, liquid biopsies using plasma are increasingly utilized, particularly for detecting T790M mutations. This study compared tissue- and plasma-based EGFR testing methods.
Methods:
A total of 248 patients were tested for EGFR mutations using tissue and plasma samples from 2018 to 2023 at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital. Tissue tests were performed using PANAmutyper, and plasma tests were performed using the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2.
Results:
All 248 patients underwent tissue-based EGFR testing, and 245 (98.8%) showed positive results. Of the 408 plasma tests, 237 (58.1%) were positive. For the T790M mutation, tissue biopsies were performed 87 times in 69 patients, and 30 positive cases (38.6%) were detected. Plasma testing for the T790M mutation was conducted 333 times in 207 patients, yielding 62 positive results (18.6%). Of these, 57 (27.5%) were confirmed to have the mutation via plasma testing. Combined tissue and plasma tests for the T790M mutation were positive in nine patients (13.4%), while 17 (25.4%) were positive in tissue only and 12 (17.9%) in plasma only. This mutation was not detected in 28 patients (43.3%).
Conclusions
Although the tissue- and plasma-based tests showed a sensitivity of 37.3% and 32.8%, respectively, combined testing increased the detection rate to 56.7%. Thus, neither test demonstrated superiority, rather, they were complementary.
8.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
9.Study on the Necessity and Methodology for Enhancing Outpatient and Clinical Education in the Department of Radiology
Soo Buem CHO ; Jiwoon SEO ; Young Hwan KIM ; You Me KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Jieun ROH ; Kyung-Hyun DO ; Jung Hwan BAEK ; Hye Shin AHN ; Min Woo LEE ; Seunghyun LEE ; Seung Eun JUNG ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hye Doo JEONG ; Bum Sang CHO ; Hwan Jun JAE ; Seon Hyeong CHOI ; Saebeom HUR ; Su Jin HONG ; Sung Il HWANG ; Auh Whan PARK ; Ji-hoon KIM
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):199-200
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