We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

Background: The use of small grafts, defined by a graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) less than 0.8, is possibly associated with an increased risk of graft loss in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aims to validate risk factors for graft loss in LDLT with GRWR<0.8 using single-center data. Methods: LDLT recipients, who received GRWR<0.8 graft at Severance Hospital, between July 2007 and December 2022, were categorized based on the number of risk factors identified in previous Korean multicentric study: recipient age ≥60 years, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥15, and male donor. Baseline characteristics and graft survival were compared among these groups. Results: The median GRWR was 0.74 (interquartile range 0.69–0.78) and minimum was 0.49. Recipients with more risk factors exhibited lower graft survival rates: 100% at 5 years in the Risk 0 group (n=18), 72.7% in the Risk 1 group (n=20), and 54.5% in the Risk≥2 group (n=18, p=0.015). This trend was similar in subgroups of right lobe graft and the others (left lobe plus right posterior lobe), although not statistically significant. Donor age did not significantly affect graft survival in GRWR<0.8 transplants (78.9% for donor age≥45 vs. 69.2% for donor age<45, p=0.25). Conclusion This study confirms that the number of risk factors, including recipient age, MELD score, and donor sex, significantly impacts graft survival in LDLT with GRWR<0.8. These findings highlight the need for careful recipient and donor selection to improve outcomes in LDLT.

Background/aims: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) with cancer stemness have been demonstrated to be a direct cause of tumor recurrence, and only few studies have reported the role of CTCs in liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Epithelial cell adhesion molecule+ (EpCAM+), cluster of differentiation 90+ (CD90+) and EpCAM+/CD90+ CTCs were sorted via fluorescence-activated cell sorting, and transcripts level of EpCAM, K19 and CD90 in the peripheral blood were analyzed via real-time polymerase chain reaction preoperatively and on postoperative days 1 and 7 in 25 patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for HCC. EpCAM protein was assessed in HCC tissue using immunohistochemical staining. The median follow-up duration was 40 months. Results: HCC after LDLT recurred in four out of 25 patients. Detection of EpCAM+ or CD90+ CTCs correlated well with their messenger RNA levels (p<0.05). EpCAM+ CTCs were readily detected in HCC tissue expressing EpCAM protein. The detection of EpCAM+ CTCs or EpCAM+/CD90+ CTCs before surgery and on postoperative day 1 was significantly associated with HCC recurrence after LT (all p<0.05). Pretransplant serum PIVKA-II >100 mAU/mL and postoperative day 1 EpCAM+/CD90+ CTCs were independent risk factors for HCC recurrence (hazard ratio, 14.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 198.20; p=0.043 and hazard ratio, 26.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.86 to 387.51; p=0.016, respectively). Conclusions EpCAM+/CD90+ CTCs can be used preoperatively and 1 day after LDLT as key biological markers in LT candidate selection and post-LDLT management.

Objective: : Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, neurointerventionists have been increasingly concerned regarding the prevention of infection and time delay in performing emergency thrombectomy procedures in patients with acute stroke. This study aimed to analyze the effects of changes in mechanical thrombectomy protocol before and after the COVID-19 pandemic on procedure time and patient outcomes and to identify factors that significantly impact procedure time. Methods: : The last-normal-to-door, first-abnormal-to-door, door-to-imaging, door-to-puncture, and puncture-to-recanalization times of 88 patients (45 treated with conventional pre-COVID-19 protocol and 43 with COVID-19 protection protocol) were retrospectively analyzed. The recanalization time, success rate of mechanical thrombectomy, and modified Rankin score of patients at discharge were assessed. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify variables that significantly influenced the time delay in the door-to-puncture time and total procedure time. Results: : The door-to-imaging time significantly increased under the COVID-19 protection protocol (p=0.0257) compared to that with the conventional pre-COVID-19 protocol. This increase was even more pronounced in patients who were suspected to be COVID-19-positive than in those who were negative. The door-to-puncture time showed no statistical difference between the conventional and COVID-19 protocol groups (p=0.5042). However, in the multivariate analysis, the last-normal-to-door time and door-to-imaging time were shown to affect the door-to-puncture time (p=0.0068 and 0.0097). The total procedure time was affected by the occlusion site, last-normal-to-door time, door-to-imaging time, and type of anesthesia (p=0.0001, 0.0231, 0.0103, and 0.0207, respectively). Conclusion : The COVID-19 protection protocol significantly impacted the door-to-imaging time. Shortening the door-to-imaging time and performing the procedure under local anesthesia, if possible, may be required to reduce the door-to-puncture and doorto- recanalization times. The effect of various aspects of the protection protocol on emergency thrombectomy should be further studied.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a highly efficacious and safe modality for the treatment of recurrent or refractory Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), with overall success rates of 90%. Thus, FMT has been widely used for 10 years. The incidence and clinical characteristics of CDI, the main indication for FMT, differ between countries. To date, several guidelines have been published. However, most of them were published in Western countries and therefore cannot represent the Korean national healthcare systems. One of the barriers to performing FMT is a lack of national guidelines. Accordingly, multidisciplinary experts in this field have developed practical guidelines for FMT. The purpose of these guidelines is to aid physicians performing FMT, which can be adapted to treat CDI and other conditions.