Background: We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score. Results: The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar. Conclusion The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.

Purpose: Low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for surveillance 2–3 years after curative resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, supporting clinical evidence is limited. This study compared LDCT with contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CECT) in terms of recurrence detection and overall survival (OS) in patients 2 years after curative resection of NSCLC. Materials and Methods: Among patients who underwent curative resection for NSCLC between January 2011 and December 2017 and survived for 2 years without recurrence, 2,083 patients were included. Comparisons between the LDCT and CECT groups were performed in both the entire cohort and propensity score-matched cohort. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival. Secondary outcomes included time-to-recurrence, recurrence-free survival, and post-recurrence survival in each group. Results: In the propensity score-matched population, the 5-year OS (96.0% for LDCT, 98.0% for CECT, p=0.097) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (95.4% for LDCT, 96.0% for CECT, p=0.761) did not differ. The OS and RFS did not differ in subgroup analyses stratified by pathologic stage and histologic type. In the competing risk analysis, the overall 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence did not differ between the two groups (4.56% for LDCT, 3.93% for CECT, p=0.765). When stratified by pathologic stage and histologic type, there was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of recurrence. The distribution of recurrence sites did not differ between groups. Conclusion Similar OS and RFS were observed in LDCT and CECT surveillance in patients who achieved a 2-year disease-free status after curative resection for NSCLC.

Purpose: Radical cystectomy (RC) is associated with substantial postoperative morbidity, and unplanned readmission remains common despite advances in perioperative management. However, the association between postoperative readmission due to complications and oncologic outcomes after RC for bladder cancer has not been clearly defined. We evaluated the impact of postoperative readmission on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) after RC for bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3,972 patients who underwent RC for bladder cancer in a multicenter cohort. Postoperative readmission was defined as unplanned hospitalization within 90 days postsurgery due to surgery-related complications. Survival outcomes were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of OS and CSS. Results: Among the study population, 916 patients (23.1%) experienced postoperative readmission. Baseline and perioperative characteristics were generally comparable between patients with and without readmission. Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated significantly worse OS and CSS among patients who experienced postoperative readmission (both log-rank p<0.001). In multivariable analyses adjusting for clinicopathological factors, postoperative readmission remained independently associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.654; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.464–1.868; p<0.001) and CSS (HR, 1.761; 95% CI, 1.509–2.055; p<0.001). Conclusion Postoperative readmission within 90 days after RC was independently associated with inferior long-term oncologic outcomes. These findings suggest the importance of strategies aimed at preventing postoperative complications and subsequent readmission.

Purpose: This study aimed to report the overall national trends in the rates of cancer screening based on recommendations and provide insights into the changing trends of these rates across different demographics. Materials and Methods: This study used data from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey (KNCSS), which surveys nationwide cancer-screening rates and includes 4,500 individuals meeting the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) protocol age criteria. Cancer-screening rates were assessed using structured questionnaires; yearly trends were analyzed for both lifetime cancer-screening rates and rates of screening based on recommendations, and subgroup analyses were performed based on age and sex. Results: The rates of cancer screening based on recommendations showed significant increments: the stomach cancer-screening rate increased from 39.2% in 2004 to 77.5% in 2023 (3.50% per year), the liver cancer-screening rate increased from 20.0% to 48.8% (4.30% per year), and the colorectal cancer, increased from 19.9% to 70.7% (5.15% per year). The breast cancer-screening rate increased from 33.2% to 72.7% (2.88% per year), and the cervical cancer, increased from 58.3% to 70.2% (1.08% per year). Despite some differences, particularly in relation to sociodemographic factors, screening rates increased significantly for all cancer types. Conclusion Cancer-screening rates in Korea increased consistently from 2004 to 2023, demonstrating the effectiveness of the national cancer-screening program. However, the increments in breast, cervical and lung cancer-screening rates were relatively lower, indicating the need for additional efforts and strategies.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

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 report the overall national trends in the rates of cancer screening based on recommendations and provide insights into the changing trends of these rates across different demographics. Materials and Methods: This study used data from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey (KNCSS), which surveys nationwide cancer-screening rates and includes 4,500 individuals meeting the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) protocol age criteria. Cancer-screening rates were assessed using structured questionnaires; yearly trends were analyzed for both lifetime cancer-screening rates and rates of screening based on recommendations, and subgroup analyses were performed based on age and sex. Results: The rates of cancer screening based on recommendations showed significant increments: the stomach cancer-screening rate increased from 39.2% in 2004 to 77.5% in 2023 (3.50% per year), the liver cancer-screening rate increased from 20.0% to 48.8% (4.30% per year), and the colorectal cancer, increased from 19.9% to 70.7% (5.15% per year). The breast cancer-screening rate increased from 33.2% to 72.7% (2.88% per year), and the cervical cancer, increased from 58.3% to 70.2% (1.08% per year). Despite some differences, particularly in relation to sociodemographic factors, screening rates increased significantly for all cancer types. Conclusion Cancer-screening rates in Korea increased consistently from 2004 to 2023, demonstrating the effectiveness of the national cancer-screening program. However, the increments in breast, cervical and lung cancer-screening rates were relatively lower, indicating the need for additional efforts and strategies.

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.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.