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.

Background: This study aims to compare the effects of short- and intermediate-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on hemoglobin (Hb) variability in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 119 patients who were classified into two groups based on ESA type: short-acting ESA (epoetin alfa/beta [EPO], n=48) and intermediate-acting ESA (darbepoetin alfa [DPO], n=71). Hb levels were measured 11 times at 4-week intervals from ESA therapy initiation to 40 weeks of follow-up. This study used established metrics from previous research, including standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and residual SD, to quantify Hb variability. Results: Over the 40-week study period with 4-week measurement intervals, mean Hb levels were comparable between the two ESA groups. In the EPO and DPO groups, SD was 0.67±0.19 g/dL and 0.69±0.22 g/dL, respectively (p=0.516), CV was 0.06±0.02 and 0.07±0.02, respectively (p=0.480), and residual SD was 0.73±0.21 g/dL and 0.76±0.26 g/dL, respectively (p=0.463). No significant differences in Hb variability were observed between the groups over 40 weeks using SD, CV, and residual SD. Conclusion This retrospective cohort study showed comparable mean Hb levels and Hb variability indices between groups. With respect to Hb variability, the findings reveal no clear basis for prioritizing either short-acting or intermediate-acting ESA.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop and implement an antimicrobial stewardship education program for physician assistant nurses and to evaluate its effects on their knowledge and clinical performance. Methods: A quasi-experimental, single-group pre-post design was conducted with 50 physician assistant nurses at a university hospital in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The antimicrobial stewardship education program, developed using the ADDIE model, consisted of 12 sessions including lectures and case-based learning (CBL)-based discussions.Knowledge was measured before and immediately after the intervention, while performance was assessed pre-intervention and four weeks post-program. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results: Knowledge scores significantly improved from 44.65±7.45 to 58.50±10.11 (p<.001), and all subdomains showed significant increases (p<.001). Performance scores increased from 3.68±0.77 to 4.28±0.68 (p<.001). Knowledge gain did not differ significantly between the medical and surgical departments (p=.710). Likewise, after adjusting for pre-test scores, no significant difference in performance improvement was observed between the two departments (ANCOVA, p=.170). These results indicate that the program was effective across both departments regardless of their characteristics. Conclusion The antimicrobial stewardship education program improved both knowledge and performance among physician assistant nurses. This program may contribute to the standardization of antimicrobial stewardship education and to appropriate antimicrobial use and the reduction of antimicrobial resistance.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.