The sixth edition of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) was published in 2025. This review compared KMAP-DD 2025 with four major international clinical practice guidelines: Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Major Depressive Disorders, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Depression Guideline, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists Clinical Practice Guidelines for Mood Disorders, and British Association for Psychopharmacology Guideline. While KMAP-DD is based on expert consensus, and others on evidence-based methods, overall treatment strategies for depressive episodes were fairly consistent. Especially, KMAP-DD 2025 offers more structured recommendations in areas lacking strong evidence, such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder, perinatal depression, and depression with medical comorbidities. KMAP-DD 2025 also reflected Korean clinical practice patterns emphasizing rapid symptom relief and early use of combination strategies. Despite limitations as a consensus-based guideline, KMAP-DD 2025 complements evidence-based approaches and provides practical, situation-specific guidance for real-world clinical decision-making in Korea.

Purpose: This study aimed to explore the effects of both the presence and size of posterior subependymal germinal matrix hemorrhage (PS-GMH), considered a mild form of hemorrhage, on the neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely preterm infants. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 221 extremely preterm infants, assessing their initial and term-equivalent age (TEA) cranial ultrasound (cUS) examinations from 2016 to 2021. Infants were classified based on the presence and size (small/large) of PS-GMH. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at corrected ages of 18-24 months were analyzed in 135 infants. Results: PS-GMH was identified in 86.9% (192/221) of the infants, with 13.5% (26/192) exhibiting large PS-GMH. Among the 135 infants who were followed up, those with PS-GMH were found to have younger gestational ages (P<0.001) and a higher incidence of maternal chorioamnionitis (P=0.016) than those without PS-GMH. Significant differences were observed in the incidence of grade II intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) on initial cUS (P=0.003) and ventriculomegaly at TEA cUS (P=0.026) across the groups with no PS-GMH, small PS-GMH, and large PS-GMH. The large PS-GMH group exhibited a higher occurrence of grade II IVH than the small PS-GMH group (P=0.006). However, ventriculomegaly incidence did not significantly vary with PS-GMH status. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were also not significantly different across PS-GMH statuses. The adjusted odds ratios for any neurodevelopmental impairment, compared to the no PS-GMH group, were 1.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 7.26; P=0.471) for all PS-GMH, 1.61 (95% CI, 0.37 to 6.93; P=0.526) for small PS-GMH, and 3.84 (95% CI, 0.62 to 24.00; P=0.150) for large PS-GMH. Conclusion PS-GMH was frequently observed in extremely preterm infants; however, it did not independently predict adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Background: Despite diabetes mellitus (DM) and pancreatitis being known risk factors for pancreatic cancer, patients with these conditions are not included in pancreatic cancer screening due to the low incidence of pancreatic cancer in these populations. This study aimed to determine the high-risk subgroup of patients with diabetes and pancreatitis that would benefit from pancreatic cancer screening. Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted using data from the National Health Information Database of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Patients were categorized into the following groups: type 2 diabetes mellitus only (T2DM-only), pancreatitis-only (PAN-only), T2DM followed by pancreatitis (T2DM-PAN), post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus (PPDM), and no diabetes and no pancreatitis (NDNP). Conditional logistic regression was used to determine significant associations of each group with pancreatic cancer development risk. Results: The risk of pancreatic cancer was significantly higher in the T2DM-PAN (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.48 to 5.49) and PPDM (AOR, 4.71; 95% CI, 4.12 to 5.37) groups than in the NDNP group. Compared to patients in the NDNP group, those with PPDM using insulin had a 17-fold increased risk (AOR, 16.72; 95% CI, 9.50 to 29.43), and individuals with PPDM who had diabetes for less than 3 years had a more than 8-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer (AOR, 8.83; 95% CI, 5.99 to 13.01). Conclusion In patients with post-pancreatitis diabetes, insulin use or shorter duration of diabetes was associated with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer, suggesting that patients in these subgroups may require close monitoring for pancreatic cancer development.

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.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background: Despite diabetes mellitus (DM) and pancreatitis being known risk factors for pancreatic cancer, patients with these conditions are not included in pancreatic cancer screening due to the low incidence of pancreatic cancer in these populations. This study aimed to determine the high-risk subgroup of patients with diabetes and pancreatitis that would benefit from pancreatic cancer screening. Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted using data from the National Health Information Database of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Patients were categorized into the following groups: type 2 diabetes mellitus only (T2DM-only), pancreatitis-only (PAN-only), T2DM followed by pancreatitis (T2DM-PAN), post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus (PPDM), and no diabetes and no pancreatitis (NDNP). Conditional logistic regression was used to determine significant associations of each group with pancreatic cancer development risk. Results: The risk of pancreatic cancer was significantly higher in the T2DM-PAN (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.48 to 5.49) and PPDM (AOR, 4.71; 95% CI, 4.12 to 5.37) groups than in the NDNP group. Compared to patients in the NDNP group, those with PPDM using insulin had a 17-fold increased risk (AOR, 16.72; 95% CI, 9.50 to 29.43), and individuals with PPDM who had diabetes for less than 3 years had a more than 8-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer (AOR, 8.83; 95% CI, 5.99 to 13.01). Conclusion In patients with post-pancreatitis diabetes, insulin use or shorter duration of diabetes was associated with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer, suggesting that patients in these subgroups may require close monitoring for pancreatic cancer development.

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.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.