1.2025 Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Yonghoon CHOI ; Young Hoon YOUN ; Seung Joo KANG ; Jeong Eun SHIN ; Young Sin CHO ; Yoon Suk JUNG ; Seung Yong SHIN ; Cheal Wung HUH ; Yoo Jin LEE ; Hoon Sup KOO ; Kwangwoo NAM ; Hong Sub LEE ; Dong Hyun KIM ; Ye Hyun PARK ; Min Cheol KIM ; Hyo Yeop SONG ; Sung-Hoon YOON ; Sang Yeol LEE ; Miyoung CHOI ; Moo-In PARK ; In-Kyung SUNG ;
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2025;31(2):133-169
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, disabling, and functional bowel disorder that significantly affects social functioning and reduces quality of life and increases social costs. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility published clinical practice guidelines on the management of IBS based on a systematic review of the literature in 2017, and planned to revise these guidelines in light of new evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of IBS. The current revised version of the guidelines is consistent with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with or suspected of having IBS. These guidelines were developed using a combination of de novo and adaptation methods, with analyses of existing guidelines and discussions within the committee, leading to the identification of key clinical questions. Finally, the guidelines consisted of 22 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and risk factors of IBS, 4 regarding diagnostic modalities and strategies, 2 regarding general management, and 13 regarding medical treatment. For each statement, the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions were thoroughly detailed. The modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert consensus to adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines. These guidelines serve as a reference for clinicians (including primary care physicians, general healthcare providers, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients, helping them to make informed decisions regarding IBS management.
2.Artificial Intelligence Models May Aid in Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with T1 Colorectal Cancer
Ji Eun BAEK ; Hahn YI ; Seung Wook HONG ; Subin SONG ; Ji Young LEE ; Sung Wook HWANG ; Sang Hyoung PARK ; Dong-Hoon YANG ; Byong Duk YE ; Seung-Jae MYUNG ; Suk-Kyun YANG ; Namkug KIM ; Jeong-Sik BYEON
Gut and Liver 2025;19(1):69-76
Background/Aims:
Inaccurate prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) may lead to unnecessary surgery following endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to validate the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) models for predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC.
Methods:
We analyzed the clinical data, laboratory results, pathological reports, and endoscopic findings of patients who underwent radical surgery for T1 CRC. We developed AI models to predict LNM using four algorithms: regularized logistic regression classifier (RLRC), random forest classifier (RFC), CatBoost classifier (CBC), and the voting classifier (VC). Four histological factors and four endoscopic findings were included to develop AI models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were measured to distinguish AI model performance in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines.
Results:
Among 1,386 patients with T1 CRC, 173 patients (12.5%) had LNM. The AUROC values of the RLRC, RFC, CBC, and VC models for LNM prediction were significantly higher (0.673, 0.640, 0.679, and 0.677, respectively) than the 0.525 suggested in accordance with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines (vs RLRC, p<0.001; vs RFC, p=0.001; vs CBC, p<0.001; vs VC, p<0.001). The AUROC value was similar between T1 colon versus T1 rectal cancers (0.718 vs 0.615, p=0.700). The AUROC value was also similar between the initial endoscopic resection and initial surgery groups (0.581 vs 0.746, p=0.845).
Conclusions
AI models trained on the basis of endoscopic findings and pathological features performed well in predicting LNM in patients with T1 CRC regardless of tumor location and initial treatment method.
3.Survey of the Actual Practices Used for Endoscopic Removal of Colon Polyps in Korea: A Comparison with the Current Guidelines
Jeongseok KIM ; Tae-Geun GWEON ; Min Seob KWAK ; Su Young KIM ; Seong Jung KIM ; Hyun Gun KIM ; Sung Noh HONG ; Eun Sun KIM ; Chang Mo MOON ; Dae Seong MYUNG ; Dong-Hoon BAEK ; Shin Ju OH ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Ji Young LEE ; Yunho JUNG ; Jaeyoung CHUN ; Dong-Hoon YANG ; Eun Ran KIM ; Intestinal Tumor Research Group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases
Gut and Liver 2025;19(1):77-86
Background/Aims:
We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps.
Methods:
From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines.
Results:
Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions.
Conclusions
Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.
4.Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Chronic AntibioticRefractory Pouchitis in Korean Patients with Ulcerative Colitis
Ji Eun BAEK ; Jung-Bin PARK ; June Hwa BAE ; Min Hyun KIM ; Seung Wook HONG ; Sung Wook HWANG ; Jong Lyul LEE ; Yong Sik YOON ; Dong-Hoon YANG ; Byong Duk YE ; Jeong-Sik BYEON ; Seung-Jae MYUNG ; Chang Sik YU ; Suk-Kyun YANG ; Sang Hyoung PARK
Gut and Liver 2025;19(3):388-397
Background/Aims:
The study investigated the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (CARP) in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).
Methods:
This single-center retrospective study included patients with UC who underwent total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at the Asan Medical Center in Korea between January 1987 and December 2022. The primary outcomes were endoscopic remission and pouch failure. The Cox’s proportional hazard model was used to identify the risk factors for CARP.
Results:
The clinical data of 232 patients were analyzed. The most common cause of surgery was steroid refractoriness (50.9%), followed by dysplasia/colorectal cancer (26.7%). Among 74 patients (31.9%) with chronic pouchitis (CP), 31 (13.4%) had CARP, and 43 (18.5%) had chronic antibiotic-dependent pouchitis (CADP). The most frequent endoscopic phenotype was focal inflammation of the pouch (CP, 47.3%; CARP, 35.5%; CADP, 55.8%). Patients with CARP were less likely to use concomitant probiotics than patients with CADP (29.0% vs 72.1%, p<0.01). The endoscopic remission rate of CP, CARP, and CADP was 14.9%, 9.7%, and 18.6%, respectively.The pouch failure rate associated with CP, CARP, and CADP was 13.5%, 16.1%, and 11.6%, respectively. Current smoking status (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 6.90; p=0.01) and previous use of biologics/small molecules (aHR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.53; p=0.04) were significantly associated with CARP development.
Conclusions
UC patients who were current smokers and previously used biologics/small molecules had a higher risk of developing CARP. Concomitant use of probiotics was less likely to be associated with CARP development.
5.Eligibility for Lecanemab Treatment in the Republic of Korea:Real-World Data From Memory Clinics
Sung Hoon KANG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Jung-Min PYUN ; Geon Ha KIM ; Young Ho PARK ; YongSoo SHIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Young Chul YOUN ; Dong Won YANG ; Hyuk-je LEE ; Han LEE ; Dain KIM ; Kyunghwa SUN ; So Young MOON ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Seong Hye CHOI
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):182-189
Background:
and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment.
Methods:
We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study.
Results:
When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22.
Conclusions
Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.
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.Conversion Therapy for Stage IV Gastric Cancer: Report From the Expert Consensus Meeting at KINGCA WEEK 2024
Tae-Han KIM ; Ichiro UYAMA ; Sun Young RHA ; Maria BENCIVENGA ; Jiyeong AN ; Lucjan WYRWICZ ; Dong-Hoe KOO ; Richard van HILLEGERSBERG ; Keun-Wook LEE ; Guoxin LI ; Takaki YOSHIKAWA ; Brian BADGWELL ; Sylvie LORENZEN ; In-Ho KIM ; In-Seob LEE ; Hye-Sook HAN ; Hur HOON
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):133-152
Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.
9.Gynecologic oncology in 2024:breakthrough trials and evolving treatment strategies for cervical, uterine corpus, and ovarian cancers
Sung Jong LEE ; Ji Geun YOO ; Jin Hwi KIM ; Jeong-Yeol PARK ; Jung-Yun LEE ; Yoo-Young LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e72-
This review summarized the results of clinical trials in 2024 that were believed to have a significant impact on clinical practice in the field of gynecologic oncology. The SHAPE trial, INTERLACE and KEYNOTE-A18 trials, and BEATcc and COMPASSION-16 trials were included in early-stage, locally advanced, and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, respectively. For uterine corpus cancer, updated survival data of the four trials (NRG-GY018, RUBY, AtTEnd, DUO-E) for endometrial cancer and the first survival data of LMS-04 trial for leiomyosarcoma were described. For ovarian cancer, the final overall survival results of PRIMA study were followed by DUO-O, ATHENA-combo, and FIRST-ENGOT-OV44 trial in different disease conditions. Finally, the results of DESTINY-PanTumor02, a basket trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan, were briefly addressed.
10.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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail