Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Objective: High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is a leading cause of cervical cancer, of which human papillomavirus (HPV)-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of cases.Since HPV infection is common, it is important to focus on the HPV genotypes that pose the highest risk for effective cervical cancer screening. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening. Methods: A total of 86,022 women aged 25 years or older was analyzed in this study.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HPV genotyping and cytology were analyzed. In addition, we subdivided participants into two groups according to cytology results, negative for intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), and analyzed absolute risk (AR) and relative risk (RR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse according to HPV genotype. Results: The AR of CIN 3 or worse was 77.0 times higher in HR-HPV-positive compared to HR-HPV-negative. Compared to 12 other HR-HPV-positive, the AR of CIN 3 or worse was 4.2 times higher in HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 positive. This finding was more evident in women with NILM than in women with ASC-US. The RR of CIN 3 or worse was 7.0 in women with NILM and 4.5 in women with ASC-US. Conclusion Regardless of the cytology results, the risk of CIN 3 or worse was higher in HPV-16/HPV-18 than in other HR-HPV. HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping is recommended to screen women with a high risk of cervical cancer.

Objective: High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is a leading cause of cervical cancer, of which human papillomavirus (HPV)-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of cases.Since HPV infection is common, it is important to focus on the HPV genotypes that pose the highest risk for effective cervical cancer screening. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening. Methods: A total of 86,022 women aged 25 years or older was analyzed in this study.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HPV genotyping and cytology were analyzed. In addition, we subdivided participants into two groups according to cytology results, negative for intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), and analyzed absolute risk (AR) and relative risk (RR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse according to HPV genotype. Results: The AR of CIN 3 or worse was 77.0 times higher in HR-HPV-positive compared to HR-HPV-negative. Compared to 12 other HR-HPV-positive, the AR of CIN 3 or worse was 4.2 times higher in HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 positive. This finding was more evident in women with NILM than in women with ASC-US. The RR of CIN 3 or worse was 7.0 in women with NILM and 4.5 in women with ASC-US. Conclusion Regardless of the cytology results, the risk of CIN 3 or worse was higher in HPV-16/HPV-18 than in other HR-HPV. HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping is recommended to screen women with a high risk of cervical cancer.

Objective: High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is a leading cause of cervical cancer, of which human papillomavirus (HPV)-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of cases.Since HPV infection is common, it is important to focus on the HPV genotypes that pose the highest risk for effective cervical cancer screening. In this study, we evaluated the clinical usefulness of HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening. Methods: A total of 86,022 women aged 25 years or older was analyzed in this study.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HPV genotyping and cytology were analyzed. In addition, we subdivided participants into two groups according to cytology results, negative for intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), and analyzed absolute risk (AR) and relative risk (RR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse according to HPV genotype. Results: The AR of CIN 3 or worse was 77.0 times higher in HR-HPV-positive compared to HR-HPV-negative. Compared to 12 other HR-HPV-positive, the AR of CIN 3 or worse was 4.2 times higher in HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 positive. This finding was more evident in women with NILM than in women with ASC-US. The RR of CIN 3 or worse was 7.0 in women with NILM and 4.5 in women with ASC-US. Conclusion Regardless of the cytology results, the risk of CIN 3 or worse was higher in HPV-16/HPV-18 than in other HR-HPV. HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping is recommended to screen women with a high risk of cervical cancer.