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: To evaluate patient‐reported experiences of 3 primary treatments for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer—radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT), and active surveillance (AS)—based on cross‐sectional data from a prospective registry, and to explore how these findings can inform a structured shared decision making (SDM) framework. Materials and Methods: Men with clinical stage cT3aN0M0 or lower were enrolled. Those who underwent RP or RT were surveyed 6–24 months posttreatment; men on AS had 6–60 months of follow‐up. All participants completed the EORTC QLQ‐PR25 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Prostate Cancer Module), capturing urinary, bowel, hormonal, and sexual function. The Kruskal‐Wallis test evaluated group differences, with significance set at p<0.05. Results: Among 542 patients, 435 underwent RP, 73 received RT (43% with androgen deprivation therapy), and 34 were on AS. RP patients reported higher rates of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, whereas RT patients had more severe urinary irritative and bowel symptoms. AS generally preserved baseline sexual function but still involved some urinary complaints and anxiety regarding disease progression. These findings underscore the distinct trade‐offs among the 3 management strategies, emphasizing the importance of individualized SDM that accounts for functional priorities and patient values. Conclusion Each treatment modality poses unique impacts on quality of life. Incorporating these patient‐reported data into SDM discussions can improve alignment between clinical recommendations and patient preferences, potentially reducing decisional regret and enhancing long‐term outcomes.

While the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale (KTAS) was introduced in 2016 as a tool to identify patients at risk of catastrophic events, including death in the ED, the triage system for the pre-hospital stage still lacks evidence. The pre-hospital stage is characterized by time-sensitive and complex scenarios, where rapid and accurate decision-making is paramount to optimize patient outcomes. Despite the vital role of pre-hospital care providers, the invalidated and subjective current triage system consisting of 4-stages is still used at the pre-hospital stage, and hence, it needs to be modified to be more objective, standardized, and reliable. To improve the Korean emergency medical system, the pre-hospital KTAS (Pre-KTAS) was developed in 2020, and then two pilot projects were conducted in 2022 and 2023. This paper not only reveals the results of the first and second pilot projects for Pre-KTAS but also highlights the potential benefits of using this newly developed triage tool in the pre-hospital setting. Furthermore, this paper suggests ways to improve the emergency medical system (EMS) in Korea by improving patient safety, resource allocation, and overall emergency response efficiency.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of primary radiotherapy (RT) versus surgery in early-stage human papilloma virus–positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (hpv+OPC), and investigate the preoperative clinical factors that can predict the requirement for postoperative adjuvant treatment. Materials and Methods: This multicenter study included 166 patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition-Stages I-II hpv+OPC. Sixty (36.1%) and 106 (63.9%) patients underwent primary (concurrent chemo)radiotherapy [(CC)RT] and surgery, respectively. Seventy-eight patients (73.6%) in the surgery group received postoperative (CC)RT. Results: With a median follow-up of 45.6 months for survivors, the 2-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and locoregional control (LC) for RT/surgery were 97.8%/96.4%, 91.1%/92.0%, and 92.9%/93.3%, respectively. In multivariate analyses, patients with synchronous radiologic extranodal extension and conglomeration (ENEcong) of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) showed significantly poorer OS (p=0.047), PFS (p=0.001), and LC (p=0.003). In patients undergoing primary surgery, two or more clinically positive LN metastases (odds ratio [OR], 5.15; p=0.004) and LN metastases with ENEcong (OR, 3.75; p=0.009) were predictors of postoperative chemoradiotherapy. No patient in the primary RT group demonstrated late severe toxicity whereas three (2.8%), one (0.9%), and one (0.9%) patient in the surgery group showed grade 3 dysphagia, grade 3 xerostomia, and fatal oral cavity bleeding. Conclusion We found no differences in OS, PFS, and LC between upfront RT and surgery in stage I-II hpv+OPC which warrants comparison through a prospective trial in the treatment de-escalation era. However, most early-stage hpv+OPC patients undergoing surgery received adjuvant (CC)RT. Pretreatment LN findings were prognostic and predictive for adjuvant treatment.

Background: To date, there has been no practical guidelines for the prescription of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in brain tumor patients in Korea. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, had begun preparing guidelines for AED usage in brain tumors since 2019. Methods: The Working Group was composed of 27 multidisciplinary medical experts in Korea.References were identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL using specific and sensitive keywords as well as combinations of the keywords. Results: The core contents are as follows. Prophylactic AED administration is not recommended in newly diagnosed brain tumor patients without previous seizure history. When AEDs are administered during peri/postoperative period, it may be tapered off according to the following recommendations. In seizure-naïve patients with no postoperative seizure, it is recommended to stop or reduce AED 1 week after surgery. In seizure-naïve patients with one early postoperative seizure (<1 week after surgery), it is advisable to maintain AED for at least 3 months before tapering. In seizure-naïve patients with ≥2 postoperative seizures or in patients with preoperative seizure history, it is recommended to maintain AEDs for more than 1 year. The possibility of drug interactions should be considered when selecting AEDs in brain tumor patients. Driving can be allowed in brain tumor patients when proven to be seizure-free for more than 1 year. Conclusion The KSNO suggests prescribing AEDs in patients with brain tumor based on the current guideline. This guideline will contribute to spreading evidence-based prescription of AEDs in brain tumor patients in Korea.

Background: There have been no guidelines for the management of adult patients with diffuse midline glioma (DMG), H3K27M-mutant in Korea since the 2016 revised WHO classification newly defined this disease entity. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, had begun preparing guidelines for DMG since 2019. Methods: The Working Group was composed of 27 multidisciplinary medical experts in Korea.References were identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL using specific and sensitive keywords as well as combinations of keywords. As ‘diffuse midline glioma’ was recently defined, and there was no international guideline, trials and guidelines of ‘diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma’ or ‘brain stem glioma’ were thoroughly reviewed first. Results: The core contents are as follows. The DMG can be diagnosed when all of the following three criteria are satisfied: the presence of the H3K27M mutation, midline location, and infiltrating feature. Without identification of H3K27M mutation by diagnostic biopsy, DMG cannot be diagnosed. For the primary treatment, maximal safe resection should be considered for tumors when feasible. Radiotherapy is the primary option for tumors in case the total resection is not possible. A total dose of 54 Gy to 60 Gy with conventional fractionation prescribed at 1-2 cm plus gross tumor volume is recommended. Although no chemotherapy has proven to be effective in DMG, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (± maintenance chemotherapy) with temozolomide following WHO grade IV glioblastoma’s protocol is recommended. Conclusion The detection of H3K27M mutation is the most important diagnostic criteria for DMG. Combination of surgery (if amenable to surgery), radiotherapy, and chemotherapy based on comprehensive multidisciplinary discussion can be considered as the treatment options for DMG.

Background: To date, there has been no practical guidelines for the prescription of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in brain tumor patients in Korea. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, had begun preparing guidelines for AED usage in brain tumors since 2019. Methods: The Working Group was composed of 27 multidisciplinary medical experts in Korea.References were identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL using specific and sensitive keywords as well as combinations of the keywords. Results: The core contents are as follows. Prophylactic AED administration is not recommended in newly diagnosed brain tumor patients without previous seizure history. When AEDs are administered during peri/postoperative period, it may be tapered off according to the following recommendations. In seizure-naïve patients with no postoperative seizure, it is recommended to stop or reduce AED 1 week after surgery. In seizure-naïve patients with one early postoperative seizure (<1 week after surgery), it is advisable to maintain AED for at least 3 months before tapering. In seizure-naïve patients with ≥2 postoperative seizures or in patients with preoperative seizure history, it is recommended to maintain AEDs for more than 1 year. The possibility of drug interactions should be considered when selecting AEDs in brain tumor patients. Driving can be allowed in brain tumor patients when proven to be seizure-free for more than 1 year. Conclusion The KSNO suggests prescribing AEDs in patients with brain tumor based on the current guideline. This guideline will contribute to spreading evidence-based prescription of AEDs in brain tumor patients in Korea.

Background: There have been no guidelines for the management of adult patients with diffuse midline glioma (DMG), H3K27M-mutant in Korea since the 2016 revised WHO classification newly defined this disease entity. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, had begun preparing guidelines for DMG since 2019. Methods: The Working Group was composed of 27 multidisciplinary medical experts in Korea.References were identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL using specific and sensitive keywords as well as combinations of keywords. As ‘diffuse midline glioma’ was recently defined, and there was no international guideline, trials and guidelines of ‘diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma’ or ‘brain stem glioma’ were thoroughly reviewed first. Results: The core contents are as follows. The DMG can be diagnosed when all of the following three criteria are satisfied: the presence of the H3K27M mutation, midline location, and infiltrating feature. Without identification of H3K27M mutation by diagnostic biopsy, DMG cannot be diagnosed. For the primary treatment, maximal safe resection should be considered for tumors when feasible. Radiotherapy is the primary option for tumors in case the total resection is not possible. A total dose of 54 Gy to 60 Gy with conventional fractionation prescribed at 1-2 cm plus gross tumor volume is recommended. Although no chemotherapy has proven to be effective in DMG, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (± maintenance chemotherapy) with temozolomide following WHO grade IV glioblastoma’s protocol is recommended. Conclusion The detection of H3K27M mutation is the most important diagnostic criteria for DMG. Combination of surgery (if amenable to surgery), radiotherapy, and chemotherapy based on comprehensive multidisciplinary discussion can be considered as the treatment options for DMG.

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)-based re-irradiation (reRT) for recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer (HNC). Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent IMRT-based reRT for recurrent or second primary HNC between 2007 and 2019 at two institutions were included. Medical records and dosimetric data were retrospectively reviewed. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), severe late toxicities, and clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Results: A total of 42 patients were analyzed. With a median follow-up of 15.1 months (range, 3.7 to 85.8 months), the median OS was 28.9 months with a 2-year OS rate of 54.6%. The median PFS and 2-year PFS rates were 10.0 months and 30.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that good performance (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] 0 or 1), a longer time interval (≥24 months) between radiotherapy courses, and higher reRT dose (>60 Gy) were significantly favorable factors for OS (all p < 0.05). Higher reRT dose and salvage surgery were significantly associated with improved PFS (all p < 0.05). Regarding the Multi‐Institution Reirradiation (MIRI) Collaborative RPA classification, the 2-year OS rates of each class were 87.5% in class I, 51.8% in class II, and 0% in class III (p = 0.008). Grade ≥3 late toxicity was reported in 10 (23.8%) patients. There was no significant factor associated with increased late toxicities. Conclusion IMRT-based reRT should be considered as a treatment option for patients with recurrent or second primary HNC. Further trials are needed to establish a subset of patients who may benefit from reRT without severe late toxicity.

Background: : The Guideline Working Group of the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO)conducted the nationwide questionnaire survey for diverse queries facing to treat patients with braintumor. As part III of the survey, the aim of this study is to evaluate the national patterns of clinical practicefor patients with brain metastasis and primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). Methods: : A web-based survey was sent to all members of the KSNO by email. The survey included7 questions of brain metastasis and 5 questions of PCNSL, focused on the management strategiesin specific situations. All questions were developed by consensus of the Guideline WorkingGroup. Results: " In the survey about brain metastasis, respondents preferred surgical resection withadjuvant treatment for patients with a surgically accessible single brain metastatic lesion less than 3cm in size without extracranial systemic lesions. However, most respondents considered radiosurgeryfor surgically inaccessible lesions. As the preferred treatment of multiple brain metastases according tothe number of brain lesions, respondents tended to choose radiotherapy with increasing number of lesions.Radiosurgery was mostly chosen for the brain metastases of less than or equal to 4. In the surveyabout PCNSL, a half of respondents choose high-dose methotrexate-based polychemotherapy asthe first-line induction therapy for PCNSL. The consolidation and salvage therapy showed a little variationamong respondents. For PCNSL patients with cerebrospinal fluid dissemination, intrathecal chemotherapywas most preferred. Conclusion : The survey demonstrates the prevailing clinical practice patterns for patients withbrain metastasis and PCNSL among members of the KSNO. This information provides a point of referencefor establishing a practical guideline in the management of brain metastasis and PCNSL.