Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Background: Chromosomal alterations serve as diagnostic and prognostic markers in acute leukemia. Given the evolving landscape of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia, we previously studied these over two periods. In this study, we investigated the frequency of these abnormalities and clinical trends in acute leukemia in Korea across three time periods. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 1,787 patients with acute leukemia (319 children and 1,468 adults) diagnosed between 2006 and 2020. Conventional cytogenetics, FISH, and multiplex quantitative PCR were used for analysis. The patient groups were divided according to the following three study periods: 2006–2009 (I), 2010–2015 (II), and 2016–2020 (III). Results: Chromosomal aberrations were detected in 92% of patients. The PML::RARA translocation was the most frequent. Over the 15-yr period, chromosomal aberrations showed minimal changes, with specific fusion transcripts being common among patients.ALL was more prevalent in children than in adults and correlated significantly with the ETV6::RUNX1 and RUNX1::RUNX1T1 aberrations. The incidence of ALL increased during the three periods, with PML::RARA remaining common. Conclusions The frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia has changed subtly over time. Notably, the age of onset of adult AML has continuously increased. Our results may help in establishing diagnoses and clinical treatment strategies and developing various molecular diagnostic platforms.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.