1.Optimal use and cycling strategies of Janus kinase inhibitors in ulcerative colitis: current evidence and clinical implications from the KASID Guidelines Task Force Team
Seung Min HONG ; Dong Hyun KIM ; June Hwa BAE ; Seung Yong SHIN ; Eun Mi SONG ; Ji Eun KIM ; Young Joo YANG ; Jiyoung YOON ; Sang-Bum KANG ; Eun Soo KIM ; Seong-Eun KIM ; Seong-Jung KIM ; Jun LEE ; Soo-Young NA ; Soo Jung PARK ; Sang Hyoung PARK ; Miyoung CHOI ; Myung Ha KIM ; Won MOON ; Sung-Ae JUNG ;
Intestinal Research 2026;24(1):27-37
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.
2.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.
3.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.
4.Survival Rates of Patients with Gastric Cancer According to Age and Sex: A Large-Scale Study Using Data from 14,739 Patients
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Ji Hyun KIM ; Hyeong Ho JO ; Hyeon Jeong OH ; Hye Seung LEE ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE ; So Hyun KANG ; Young Suk PARK ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Do Joong PARK ; Hyung Ho KIM ; Ji-Won KIM ; Jin Won KIM ; Keun-Wook LEE ; Won CHANG ; Yoon Jin LEE ; Kyoung Ho LEE ; Young Hoon KIM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2026;58(1):252-263
Purpose:
The male predominance in the incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is established; however, sex differences in the prognosis of GC remain controversial. As such, this study analyzed the prognosis of patients with GC based on age and sex.
Materials and Methods:
Data from 14,739 patients diagnosed with GC at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between 2003 and 2023 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, histological types of GC, overall and GC-specific survival rates (age and stage stratification), and associated risk factors were analyzed.
Results:
Females were significantly younger (p < 0.001) and exhibited more gastric body cancers (p < 0.001) and tumors with diffuse-type or poorly differentiated histology (p < 0.001) than males. Females exhibited an advantage over males in terms of overall survival (p=0.004), but not in GC-specific survival. However, age stratification revealed significant sex differences, that females < 50 years of age exhibited survival disadvantages (p < 0.001); however, this trend was reversed with age, and females > 60 years exhibited survival advantages (p < 0.001) for both overall and GC-specific survival. This may be explained by the lower ratio of diffuse-type GC as females age. Furthermore, in the analysis according to stage, females with stage IV disease exhibited significant survival disadvantages, with significantly younger age and a higher proportion of diffuse-type GC which exhibits aggressive features, resulting in poorer survival than in males.
Conclusion
Age and stage stratification revealed significant differences in survival between the sexes, which can be helpful for public health strategies.
5.Data-driven life-stage classification for companion dogs and cats using age-specific diagnosis patterns in South Korea
Jin-Young PARK ; Seogjin KANG ; Yoon Jung DO ; Eun-yeong BOK ; Jong Ryul PARK ; Tae Woo KIM ; Chang-Min LEE ; Woong-Bin RO ; Jang Yeop KIM ; Dong Yun LEE ; Heyong-Seok KIM ; Kyung-Duk MIN
Journal of Veterinary Science 2026;27(1):e5-
Objective:
To classify life stages for companion dogs and cats by identifying clusters in age-specific disease proportions derived from medical records, providing a data-driven foundation for health examination programs.
Methods:
We collected 505,667 medical records from 82 veterinary facilities in South Korea between 2020 and 2023. Diagnoses were standardized using GPT-4o and S-BioBERT. Following preprocessing, data from 27 facilities yielded 222,706 canine and 39,910 feline records for the final analysis. Principal component analysis and K-means clustering (K = 4) were applied to age-specific disease proportions to identify life stages.The 10 most highest-proportion diagnoses diseases were determined for each cluster.
Results:
Canine life stages were classified as ≤ 1 year, 2–5 years, 6–10 years, and 11–15+ years.Feline life stages were 1–2 years, 3–8 years, 9–12 years, and 13–15+ years. In dogs, developmental diseases were common in the youngest age group, while chronic diseases were more prevalent in older groups. In cats, oral and urinary diseases were high-ranking, conjunctivitis was most common in the early stage, and chronic diseases increased with age.
Conclusions
and Relevance: Age-specific diagnosis patterns support four practical life stages for dogs and cats in South Korea. These boundaries can inform evidence-based preventive examination schedules, animal health policy, and pet insurance product design.
6.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.
7.Korean Thyroid Association Guidelines on the Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers; Part II. Follow-up Surveillance after Initial Treatment 2026
Eun Kyung LEE ; Seung Heon KANG ; Bon Seok KOO ; Mijin KIM ; Min Joo KIM ; Bo Hyun KIM ; Ji Won KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Sohyun PARK ; Ji-In BANG ; Kyorim BACK ; Youngduk SEO ; Young-Ik SON ; Young Shin SONG ; Dong Yeob SHIN ; Jong-Hyuk AHN ; Hwa Young AHN ; So Won OH ; Ho-Ryun WON ; Won Sang YOO ; Min Kyoung LEE ; Sang-Woo LEE ; Jeongmin LEE ; Ji Ye LEE ; Dong-Jun LIM ; Ki-Wook CHUNG ; Ari CHONG ; Jin Hyang JUNG ; Sun Wook CHO ; Yoon Young CHO ; Chae Moon HONG ; Young Joo PARK ;
International Journal of Thyroidology 2026;19(1):1-40
In patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), initial recurrence risk stratification based on clinical, histopathological, and perioperative data remains the key determinant for guiding management strategies during the first 1-2 years post-treatment. However, the adoption of ongoing risk stratification (ORS), which dynamically reassesses risk by integrating longitudinal clinical data and treatment response, enables more precise long-term prognostic assessment and facilitates highly individualized management. Building upon recent guidelines, the 2026 KTA guideline has been further refined by incorporating robust evidence from large-scale national cohorts and comprehensive systematic reviews. These updated recommendations outline contemporary concepts of ORS, risk-adapted TSH suppression targets, optimized surveillance modalities for recurrence detection, and disease-specific long-term follow-up strategies. Reflecting the paradigm shift toward de-escalated treatment, this revision integrates evolved perspectives on TSH suppression intensity, the clinical interpretation of thyroglobulin levels, and tailored follow-up intervals. These evidence-based recommendations aim to minimize unnecessary treatment and excessive surveillance in the large proportion of patients with excellent prognosis after initial therapy, while ensuring that each patient receives appropriately tailored and effective long-term management.
8.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
9.The Korean Organ Transplant Registry (KOTRY): Third Official Adult Heart Transplant Report
Hyo-In CHOI ; Sang Eun LEE ; Junho HYUN ; Darae KIM ; Dong-Ju CHOI ; Eun-Seok JEON ; Hae-Young LEE ; Hyun-Jai CHO ; Hyungseop KIM ; In-Cheol KIM ; Jaewon OH ; Minjae YOON ; Jin Joo PARK ; Jin-Oh CHOI ; Min Ho JU ; Seok-Min KANG ; Soo Yong LEE ; Sung-Ho JUNG ; Jae-Joong KIM
Korean Circulation Journal 2025;55(2):79-96
Background and Objectives:
The Korean Organ Transplant Registry (KOTRY) provided data for this third official report on adult heart transplantation (HT), including information from 709 recipients.
Methods:
Data from HTs performed at seven major centers in Korea between March 2014 and December 2020 were analyzed, focusing on immunosuppression, acute rejection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), post-transplant survival, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) usage.
Results:
The median ages of the recipients and donors were 56.0 and 43.0 years, respectively.Cardiomyopathy and ischemic heart disease were the most common preceding conditions for HT. A significant portion of patients underwent HT at waiting list status 1 and 0. In the multivariate analysis, a predicted heart mass mismatch was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality. Patients over 70 years old had a significantly increased risk of 6-year mortality. The risk of CAV was higher for male donors and donors older than 45 years. Acute rejection was more likely in patients with panel reactive antibody levels above 80%, while statin use was associated with a reduced risk. The employment of left ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplantation increased from 2.17% to 22.4%. Pre-transplant extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with worse post-transplant survival.
Conclusions
In this third KOTRY report, we analyzed changes in the characteristics of adult HT recipients and donors and their impact on post-transplant outcomes. The most notable discovery was the increased use of MCS before HT and their impact on post-transplant outcomes.
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