Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Background: Malnutrition exacerbates the prognosis of numerous diseases; however, its specific impact on severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes remains insufficiently explored. Methods: This multicenter study in Korea evaluated the nutritional status of 1,088 adults with severe COVID-19 using the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) based on serum albumin levels and body weight. The patients were categorized into two groups: GNRI >98 (no-risk) and GNRI ≤98 (risk). Propensity score matching, adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, was conducted. Results: Of the 1,088 patients, 642 (59%) were classified as at risk of malnutrition. Propensity score matching revealed significant disparities in hospital (34.3% vs. 19.4%, p<0.001) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (31.5% vs. 18.9%, p<0.001) between the groups. The risk group was associated with a higher hospital mortality rate in the multivariate Cox regression analyses following propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; p=0.001). Among the 670 elderly patients, 450 were at risk of malnutrition. Furthermore, the risk group demonstrated significantly higher hospital (52.1% vs. 29.5%, p<0.001) and ICU mortality rates (47.2% vs. 29.1%, p<0.001). The risk group was significantly associated with increased hospital mortality rates in the multivariate analyses following propensity score adjustment (HR, 1.66; p=0.001). Conclusion Malnutrition, as indicated by a low GNRI, was associated with increased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. This effect was also observed in the elderly population. These findings underscore the critical importance of nutritional assessment and effective interventions for patients with severe COVID-19.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Purpose: Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (iFOBT) have been utilized as the primary method for colorectal cancer screening within Korea's National Cancer Screening Program. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the accreditation program for clinical laboratories and external quality assessment (EQA) programs on colorectal cancer screening. Methods: We analyzed the false-positive rates of iFOBT in colorectal cancer screening from 2016 to 2020 according to participation and performance in the Outstanding Laboratory Accreditation Program (OLAP) conducted by the Laboratory Medicine Foundation, and the External Quality Assessment programs run by the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service. Results: False-positive rates of iFOBT were lower among institutions accredited by OLAP (2.35%) compared with non-accredited (3.04%) and non-participating institutions (5.60%). Similarly, institutions participating in the EQA program exhibited lower false-positive rates (3.79%) compared to non-participants (7.04%). Within the iFOBT-specific EQA program, institutions that passed demonstrated the lowest false-positive rate (3.37%), while failing institutions showed the highest rate (9.07%), surpassing even non-participating institutions (6.44%). Conclusion Participation in quality management programs such as OLAP and EQA was associated with lower false-positive rates in iFOBT for colorectal cancer screening. These findings suggest that quality management initiatives can increase the accuracy of iFOBT, potentially improving the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs, and reducing unnecessary follow-up procedures and associated healthcare costs.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Purpose: Immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (iFOBT) have been utilized as the primary method for colorectal cancer screening within Korea's National Cancer Screening Program. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the accreditation program for clinical laboratories and external quality assessment (EQA) programs on colorectal cancer screening. Methods: We analyzed the false-positive rates of iFOBT in colorectal cancer screening from 2016 to 2020 according to participation and performance in the Outstanding Laboratory Accreditation Program (OLAP) conducted by the Laboratory Medicine Foundation, and the External Quality Assessment programs run by the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service. Results: False-positive rates of iFOBT were lower among institutions accredited by OLAP (2.35%) compared with non-accredited (3.04%) and non-participating institutions (5.60%). Similarly, institutions participating in the EQA program exhibited lower false-positive rates (3.79%) compared to non-participants (7.04%). Within the iFOBT-specific EQA program, institutions that passed demonstrated the lowest false-positive rate (3.37%), while failing institutions showed the highest rate (9.07%), surpassing even non-participating institutions (6.44%). Conclusion Participation in quality management programs such as OLAP and EQA was associated with lower false-positive rates in iFOBT for colorectal cancer screening. These findings suggest that quality management initiatives can increase the accuracy of iFOBT, potentially improving the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs, and reducing unnecessary follow-up procedures and associated healthcare costs.

Background: Malnutrition exacerbates the prognosis of numerous diseases; however, its specific impact on severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes remains insufficiently explored. Methods: This multicenter study in Korea evaluated the nutritional status of 1,088 adults with severe COVID-19 using the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) based on serum albumin levels and body weight. The patients were categorized into two groups: GNRI >98 (no-risk) and GNRI ≤98 (risk). Propensity score matching, adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, was conducted. Results: Of the 1,088 patients, 642 (59%) were classified as at risk of malnutrition. Propensity score matching revealed significant disparities in hospital (34.3% vs. 19.4%, p<0.001) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (31.5% vs. 18.9%, p<0.001) between the groups. The risk group was associated with a higher hospital mortality rate in the multivariate Cox regression analyses following propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; p=0.001). Among the 670 elderly patients, 450 were at risk of malnutrition. Furthermore, the risk group demonstrated significantly higher hospital (52.1% vs. 29.5%, p<0.001) and ICU mortality rates (47.2% vs. 29.1%, p<0.001). The risk group was significantly associated with increased hospital mortality rates in the multivariate analyses following propensity score adjustment (HR, 1.66; p=0.001). Conclusion Malnutrition, as indicated by a low GNRI, was associated with increased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. This effect was also observed in the elderly population. These findings underscore the critical importance of nutritional assessment and effective interventions for patients with severe COVID-19.