Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate long-term treatment outcomes in patients with localized gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma treated with radiotherapy (RT). Materials and Methods: A total of 229 patients who received RT in 10 tertiary hospitals between 2010 and 2019 were included in this multicenter analysis. Response after RT was based on esophagogastroduodenoscopy after RT. Locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: After a median follow-up time of 93.2 months, 5-year LRFS, DFS, and OS rates were 92.8%, 90.4%, and 96.1%, respectively. LRFS, DFS, and OS rates at 10 years were 90.3%, 87.7%, and 92.8%, respectively. Of 229 patients, 228 patients (99.6%) achieved complete remission after RT. Five-year LRFS was significantly lower in patients with stage IIE than in those with stage IE (77.4% vs. 94.2%, p=0.047). Patients with age ≥ 60 had significantly lower LRFS than patients with age < 60 (89.3% vs. 95.1%, p=0.003). In the multivariate analysis, old age (≥ 60 years) was a poor prognostic factor for LRFS (hazard ratio, 3.72; confidence interval, 1.38 to 10.03; p=0.009). Grade 2 or higher gastritis was reported in 69 patients (30.1%). Secondary malignancies including gastric adenocarcinoma, malignant lymphoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer were observed in 11 patients (4.8%) after RT. Conclusion Patients treated with RT for localized gastric MALT lymphoma showed favorable 10-year outcomes. Radiation therapy is an effective treatment without an increased risk of secondary cancer. The toxicity for RT to the stomach is not high.

Background: Barriers to treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in South Korea remain incompletely characterized. We analyze a nationwide prospective cohort to determine patient-level features associated with delayed presentation and non-treatment of potential IVT-eligible patients. Methods: We identified consecutive patients with AIS from 01/2011 to 08/2023 from a multicenter and prospective acute stroke registry in Korea. Patients were defined as IVT candidates if they presented within 4.5 hours from the last known well, had no lab evidence of coagulopathy, and had National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥ 4. Multivariable generalized linear mixed regression models were used to investigate the associations between their characteristics and the IVT candidates or the use of IVT among the candidates. Results: Among 84,103 AIS patients, 41.0% were female, with a mean age of 69 ± 13 years and presentation NIHSS of 4 [interquartile range, 1–8]. Out of these patients, 13,757 (16.4%) were eligible for IVT, of whom 8,179 (59.5%) received IVT. Female sex (adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.94) and lower years of education (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97 for 0–3 years, compared to ≥ 13 years) were associated with a decreased likelihood of presenting as eligible for IVT after AIS; meanwhile, young age (adjusted RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01–1.24 for ≤ 44 years, compared to 75–84 years) was associated with an increased likelihood of being an IVT candidate. Among those who were eligible for IVT, only age was significantly associated with the use of IVT (adjusted RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03–1.16 for age 65–74 and adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76–0.90 for ≥ 85 years, respectively). Conclusion Most patients with AIS present outside IVT eligibility in South Korea, and only 60% of eligible patients were ultimately treated. We identified increased age, female sex and lower education as key features on which to focus interventions for improving IVT utilization.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate long-term treatment outcomes in patients with localized gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma treated with radiotherapy (RT). Materials and Methods: A total of 229 patients who received RT in 10 tertiary hospitals between 2010 and 2019 were included in this multicenter analysis. Response after RT was based on esophagogastroduodenoscopy after RT. Locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: After a median follow-up time of 93.2 months, 5-year LRFS, DFS, and OS rates were 92.8%, 90.4%, and 96.1%, respectively. LRFS, DFS, and OS rates at 10 years were 90.3%, 87.7%, and 92.8%, respectively. Of 229 patients, 228 patients (99.6%) achieved complete remission after RT. Five-year LRFS was significantly lower in patients with stage IIE than in those with stage IE (77.4% vs. 94.2%, p=0.047). Patients with age ≥ 60 had significantly lower LRFS than patients with age < 60 (89.3% vs. 95.1%, p=0.003). In the multivariate analysis, old age (≥ 60 years) was a poor prognostic factor for LRFS (hazard ratio, 3.72; confidence interval, 1.38 to 10.03; p=0.009). Grade 2 or higher gastritis was reported in 69 patients (30.1%). Secondary malignancies including gastric adenocarcinoma, malignant lymphoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer were observed in 11 patients (4.8%) after RT. Conclusion Patients treated with RT for localized gastric MALT lymphoma showed favorable 10-year outcomes. Radiation therapy is an effective treatment without an increased risk of secondary cancer. The toxicity for RT to the stomach is not high.