Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Recent studies have shown an increased risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who use both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We analyzed the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding and compared this risk between NSAID+PPI users and NSAID-only users. Methods: In this retrospective, observational study, data from five hospitals were analyzed using a common data model to determine the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding and compare this risk between NSAID+PPI users (target cohort) and NSAID-only users (comparative cohort). Cox proportional hazard models and the Kaplan-Meier estimations were employed after extensive propensity score matching. Results: Among 24,530 individuals in the target cohort and 57,264 in the comparative cohort, 8,728 propensity score-matched pairs were analyzed. The risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly higher in NSAID+PPI users than in NSAID-only users (hazard ratio [HR], 2.843;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.998 to 4.044; p<0.001). Similar findings were also noted in elderly patients >65 years (HR, 2.737), males (HR, 2.963), and females (HR, 3.221). However, the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was comparable between NSAID+mucoprotective agent users and NSAID-only users (HR, 2.057; 95% CI, 0.714 to 5.924; p=0.172). Conclusions The risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was higher in NSAID+PPI users than in NSAID-only users. However, the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was comparable between NSAID+mucoprotective agent users and NSAID-only users.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Recent studies have shown an increased risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who use both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We analyzed the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding and compared this risk between NSAID+PPI users and NSAID-only users. Methods: In this retrospective, observational study, data from five hospitals were analyzed using a common data model to determine the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding and compare this risk between NSAID+PPI users (target cohort) and NSAID-only users (comparative cohort). Cox proportional hazard models and the Kaplan-Meier estimations were employed after extensive propensity score matching. Results: Among 24,530 individuals in the target cohort and 57,264 in the comparative cohort, 8,728 propensity score-matched pairs were analyzed. The risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly higher in NSAID+PPI users than in NSAID-only users (hazard ratio [HR], 2.843;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.998 to 4.044; p<0.001). Similar findings were also noted in elderly patients >65 years (HR, 2.737), males (HR, 2.963), and females (HR, 3.221). However, the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was comparable between NSAID+mucoprotective agent users and NSAID-only users (HR, 2.057; 95% CI, 0.714 to 5.924; p=0.172). Conclusions The risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was higher in NSAID+PPI users than in NSAID-only users. However, the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding was comparable between NSAID+mucoprotective agent users and NSAID-only users.

Background/Aims: Despite of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is little data regarding its impact on colorectal cancer (CRC)-related clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the changes in its impact during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This was a retrospective national population-based study using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment database from January 2019 to December 2021. The number of patients in 2020 and 2021 was compared with those in 2019 for the diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, CRC-related operation, and any treatment for CRC. Results: The annual number of patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopies decreased by 6.9% in 2020 but increased 8.1% in 2021, compared to those in 2019; number of patients undergoing therapeutic colonoscopies increased by 6.0% and 37.7% in 2020 and 2021, respectively; number of patients operated for CRC decreased by 4.2% in 2020 and increased by 2.3% in 2021. The number of patients treated for CRC decreased by 2.8% in 2020 and increased by 4.4% in 2021. Diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies and any CRC-related treatment decreased by 43.8%, 37.5%, and 11.3% in March 2020, during the first surge of COVID-19, but increased by 26.0%, 58.1%, and 9.5% in June 2021, respectively. CRC-related operations decreased by 24.1% in April 2020 and increased by 12.6% in August 2021. Conclusions Negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practices related to CRC completely recovered within second year. It could be considered for the development of an optimal strategy on CRC management in response to the pandemic-driven crisis.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background/Aims: Despite of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is little data regarding its impact on colorectal cancer (CRC)-related clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the changes in its impact during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This was a retrospective national population-based study using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment database from January 2019 to December 2021. The number of patients in 2020 and 2021 was compared with those in 2019 for the diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, CRC-related operation, and any treatment for CRC. Results: The annual number of patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopies decreased by 6.9% in 2020 but increased 8.1% in 2021, compared to those in 2019; number of patients undergoing therapeutic colonoscopies increased by 6.0% and 37.7% in 2020 and 2021, respectively; number of patients operated for CRC decreased by 4.2% in 2020 and increased by 2.3% in 2021. The number of patients treated for CRC decreased by 2.8% in 2020 and increased by 4.4% in 2021. Diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies and any CRC-related treatment decreased by 43.8%, 37.5%, and 11.3% in March 2020, during the first surge of COVID-19, but increased by 26.0%, 58.1%, and 9.5% in June 2021, respectively. CRC-related operations decreased by 24.1% in April 2020 and increased by 12.6% in August 2021. Conclusions Negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practices related to CRC completely recovered within second year. It could be considered for the development of an optimal strategy on CRC management in response to the pandemic-driven crisis.