Purpose: Patients with stage I colorectal cancer (CRC) rarely experience recurrence after curative resection. Therefore, the risk factors for stage I CRC recurrence are yet to be established. We aimed to identify risk factors for stage I CRC recurrence. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between 1990 and 2022. The pooled proportions and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Fixed- or random-effect models were considered based on heterogeneity, using Cochran’s Q-statistic and the I2 -test. Results: Nine studies involving 19,440 patients were included. Nine analyzed risk factors were identified. T2 stage (pooled HR, 2.070; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.758–2.438; P < 0.001; I2 =0.0%), lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.685; 95% CI, 1.420–1.999; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%), venous invasion (HR, 1.794; 95% CI, 1.515–2.125; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%), CEA level (HR, 1.472; 95% CI, 1.093–1.983; P = 0.011; I2 = 1.8%) and rectal cancer (HR, 2.981; 95% CI, 2.378–3.735; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%) were risk factors for the recurrence. However, the risk of recurrence in right-sided colon cancer was lower than in leftsided colon cancer. (HR, 0.712; 95% CI, 0.537–0.944; P = 0.018; I2 = 0.0%). No statistically significant differences were observed in the number of harvested lymph nodes, age, and sex. Conclusion T2 stage, lymphovascular invasion, venous invasion, CEA level, rectal cancer, and left-sided colon cancer were risk factors for recurrence in stage I CRC. Intensive monitoring and surveillance are warranted for patients with high-risk features of recurrence.

Methods: A total of 68 patients with symptomatic, low-grade DLS and moderate-to-severe central canal stenosis underwent ULBD using BESS. Patients were followed for at least 2 years. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Radiological outcomes were assessed on the basis of sagittal translation from dynamic flexion–extension radiographs. Results: The mean VAS score for back pain decreased from 3.8±2.4 preoperatively to 1.9±2.0 at the final follow-up, and the leg pain scores decreased from 6.4±1.8 to 2.3±2.0 (both p<0.05). The ODI score improved significantly from 48.9±15.7 preoperatively to 23.1±17.5 at the final follow-up (p<0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 27.9%, 42.6%, 22.1%, and 7.4% of the patients reported excellent, good, fair, and poor outcomes. Radiological assessments indicated no significant changes in sagittal translation, supporting the preservation of spinal stability. Conclusions BESS with ULBD represents a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for treating low-grade DLS with central canal stenosis. It offers substantial symptom relief and functional improvement without jeopardizing spinal stability, making it a viable alternative to conventional fusion surgery.

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of renal artery embolization (RAE) via transradial access (TRA) in patients with renal angiomyolipoma (AML) or renal hemorrhage. Materials and Methods: Data were collected for this prospective single-center study from 50 patients (51 ± 12 years; male:female, 11:39) who underwent RAE for renal AML (n = 46) or renal hemorrhage (n = 4) between November 2020 and January 2024. Patients with a Barbeau D waveform or a radial artery diameter of <1.5 mm were excluded. Technical success in patients with renal AML and renal hemorrhage was defined as achieving selective catheterization of the culprit artery with embolization, leading to flow stasis and the absence of bleeding evidence, respectively. Clinical success was indicated by a reduction in AML size on follow-up CT scans and the absence of bleeding signs without necessitating additional RAE. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was utilized to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: In one patient with AML, embolization could not be performed following selective catheterization and angiography due to the lack of visible tumor vascularity, resulting in a technical success rate of 98% (49/50). The clinical success rate was 96% (48/50 patients). No instances of TRA failure, conversion to transfemoral access (TFA), or hemostasis failure were noted.During the follow-up period, no major adverse events associated with the RAE occurred. Two patients exhibited asymptomatic radial artery occlusion, and one patient displayed asymptomatic partial thrombosis of the renal artery at the first follow-up visit. The EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86–0.95) within 24 hours post-procedure and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85–0.92) at the first follow-up (P = 0.332). Conclusion TRA is a feasible and safe approach for performing RAE in patients with renal AML or hemorrhage. RAE performed using TRA demonstrated high HRQoL outcomes and may serve as a viable alternative to TFA for performing RAE.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Background: To identify the optimal surgical technique for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), this study compared surgical outcomes and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing single-level ACDF using cage alone single-level fusion and plate fixation techniques. Methods: This single-center retrospective study (2003–2018) included patients who underwent single-level ACDF with either plate fixation (PLATE) or cage (CAGE) alone. The radiologic and clinical outcomes between the 2 surgical groups were compared over a 4-year follow-up period. Outcomes of interest included parameters related to range of motion, sagittal alignment, as well as fusion, subsidence, and ASD rates. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Dysphagia and hoarseness rates were estimated based on medical records. Results: Forty-seven patients were included (n=17 in CAGE group). In the CAGE group, 94.1% of the patients had Bridwell grade 1 or 2, compared to 83.3% in the PLATE group (p = 0.396). Subsidence occurred in 12.5% and 3.6% of the CAGE and PLATE cases, respectively (p = 0.543). Segmental kyphosis progressed in the CAGE group compared to the PLATE group at 12, 24, and 48 months (p < 0.001). Radiographic ASD was observed in 41.2% and 30.0% of patients in the CAGE and PLATE groups, respectively, with a higher incidence in the upper segments for both groups. Preoperative NDI scores were similar between the groups; however, postoperatively, the CAGE group had significantly lower NDI scores (3.50 ± 2.74 vs. 8.00 ± 5.81) at 4 years (p = 0.020). Neck pain VAS scores also showed significant improvement in the CAGE group (2.33 ± 2.94) compared with that in the PLATE group (3.07 ± 2.31) at 4 years (p = 0.045). Both groups showed comparable arm pain VAS scores at 2 and 4 years postoperatively. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 1 patient in the PLATE group, resolving almost completely by 1 year. Conclusions Single-level ACDF using a cage alone technique demonstrated favorable radiologic and clinical outcomes overall compared to plate-augmented ACDF. However, plate augmentation is recommended for patients with severe cervical kyphosis or those at high risk of subsidence.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background/Aims: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has become the standard for initial evaluation in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions. Although optimal visualization of the mucosa is important, patients experience difficulty in consuming a large volume of bowel preparation agents. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (AA) and 2-L PEG with AA. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study, patients who received SBCE were randomly assigned to consume 1-L PEG with AA or 2-L PEG with AA for small bowel preparation. The primary outcome was adequate small bowel visibility quality (SBVQ). The secondary outcomes included diagnostic yield, cecal complete rate, and adverse events. Results: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this study, 70 patients per group. In the per-protocol analysis, there were no significant differences in the adequate SBVQ rate (94.0% vs 94.3%; risk difference, –0.3; 95% confidence interval, –8.1 to 7.6; p=1.000), diagnostic yield rate (49.3% vs 48.6%, p=0.936), or cecal complete rate (88.1% vs 92.9%, p=0.338) between the 1-L PEG with AA group and 2-L PEG with AA group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.9% vs 11.9%, p=0.871). Conclusions One liter-PEG with AA is not inferior to 2-L PEG with AA in terms of adequate SBVQ for SBCE. One liter-PEG with AA can be recommended as the standard method for bowel cleansing for SBCE.

Purpose: Patients with stage I colorectal cancer (CRC) rarely experience recurrence after curative resection. Therefore, the risk factors for stage I CRC recurrence are yet to be established. We aimed to identify risk factors for stage I CRC recurrence. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between 1990 and 2022. The pooled proportions and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Fixed- or random-effect models were considered based on heterogeneity, using Cochran’s Q-statistic and the I2 -test. Results: Nine studies involving 19,440 patients were included. Nine analyzed risk factors were identified. T2 stage (pooled HR, 2.070; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.758–2.438; P < 0.001; I2 =0.0%), lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.685; 95% CI, 1.420–1.999; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%), venous invasion (HR, 1.794; 95% CI, 1.515–2.125; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%), CEA level (HR, 1.472; 95% CI, 1.093–1.983; P = 0.011; I2 = 1.8%) and rectal cancer (HR, 2.981; 95% CI, 2.378–3.735; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%) were risk factors for the recurrence. However, the risk of recurrence in right-sided colon cancer was lower than in leftsided colon cancer. (HR, 0.712; 95% CI, 0.537–0.944; P = 0.018; I2 = 0.0%). No statistically significant differences were observed in the number of harvested lymph nodes, age, and sex. Conclusion T2 stage, lymphovascular invasion, venous invasion, CEA level, rectal cancer, and left-sided colon cancer were risk factors for recurrence in stage I CRC. Intensive monitoring and surveillance are warranted for patients with high-risk features of recurrence.

Methods: A total of 68 patients with symptomatic, low-grade DLS and moderate-to-severe central canal stenosis underwent ULBD using BESS. Patients were followed for at least 2 years. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Radiological outcomes were assessed on the basis of sagittal translation from dynamic flexion–extension radiographs. Results: The mean VAS score for back pain decreased from 3.8±2.4 preoperatively to 1.9±2.0 at the final follow-up, and the leg pain scores decreased from 6.4±1.8 to 2.3±2.0 (both p<0.05). The ODI score improved significantly from 48.9±15.7 preoperatively to 23.1±17.5 at the final follow-up (p<0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 27.9%, 42.6%, 22.1%, and 7.4% of the patients reported excellent, good, fair, and poor outcomes. Radiological assessments indicated no significant changes in sagittal translation, supporting the preservation of spinal stability. Conclusions BESS with ULBD represents a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for treating low-grade DLS with central canal stenosis. It offers substantial symptom relief and functional improvement without jeopardizing spinal stability, making it a viable alternative to conventional fusion surgery.

Purpose: This multicenter, open-label, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of bortezomib combined with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in previously treated patients across 14 institutions in South Korea. Materials and Methods: Between September 2017 and July 2020, 29 patients with histologically confirmed CTCL received treatment, consisting of eight 4-week cycles of induction therapy followed by maintenance therapy, contingent upon response, for up to one year. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective global response. Results: Thirteen of the 29 patients (44.8%) achieved an objective global response, including two complete responses. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.8 months, with responders showing a median PFS of 14.0 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, with a low incidence of peripheral neuropathy and hematologic toxicities. Despite the trend toward shorter PFS in patients with higher mutation burdens, genomic profiling before and after treatment showed no significant emergence of new mutations indicative of disease progression. Conclusion This study supports the use of bortezomib and dexamethasone as a viable and safe treatment option for previously treated CTCL, demonstrating substantial efficacy and manageability in adverse effects. Further research with a larger cohort is suggested to validate these findings and explore the prognostic value of mutation profiles.