Background: The Dejour classification is widely accepted for grading the severity of trochlear dysplasia. However, whether it serves as a reliable prognostic marker for patellar instability surgery or a guide for clinical decision-making has yet to be established. Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, with or without tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO), yields comparable outcomes across Dejour grades. Nonetheless, we hypothesized that specific trochlear parameters would be more significant predictors of surgical results. Methods: This study included patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction, with or without TTO, for recurrent patellar dislocation at a single institution between 2010 and 2023. Patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were included. Preoperative demographics, radiographic measurements such as sulcus angle, lateral trochlear inclination (LTI), and trochlear depth, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and intraoperative findings including cartilage status were analyzed. Severe trochlear dysplasia (STD) was categorized as Dejour B/D, while non-STD encompassed all other cases, and these 2 groups were compared. Postoperative PROMs were assessed at 1 year postoperatively and at the final follow-up. A noninferiority test was performed using Kujala, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, with the inferiority margin defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Linear relationships between LTI, a widely used indicator of trochleoplasty, and PROMs were evaluated. Additionally, differences in the proportion of patients achieving MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and patient-acceptable symptom state were analyzed using odds ratios. Results: Forty-two knees (41 patients) were finally enrolled. Radiographic measurements, except for LTI at the most proximal trochlea, showed no significant differences between the STD and non-STD groups. Clinical outcomes also demonstrated no significant differences between the 2 groups, and noninferiority was confirmed. When analyzed based on LTI, no differences in PROMs were observed at the postoperative 1 year. However, at the final follow-up (mean, 37.27 months), the most proximal trochlear LTI showed significant correlations with both Kujala and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score over the follow-up period. Conclusions MPFL reconstruction, with or without TTO, leads to similar clinical improvements for STD classified by Dejour criteria. However, when assessed using proximal LTI, dysplasia’s role as a prognostic factor should be considered.

Purpose: Radical cystectomy (RC), which is the standard of care for muscle-invasive and high-grade noninvasive bladder cancer, is accompanied by postoperative renal function deterioration. We aimed to evaluate the effect of serum albumin level on postoperative renal function decline after RC. Materials and Methods: A total of 272 patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 mL/minute/1.73 m 2 who underwent RC between October 2003 and December 2020 were included. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was defined according to the KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) criteria, while postoperative chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression was defined as an eGFR <60 mL/minute/1.73 m 2 at ≥3 months after RC. Results: In our cohort, 20 (7.4%) and 99 (36.4%) patients experienced postoperative AKI and CKD progression, respectively, with a median follow-up period of 51.5 months. The median preoperative serum albumin level and eGFR were 4.1 g/dL and 82.0 mL/minute/1.73 m 2 , respectively. Preoperative serum albumin less than the median (4.1 g/dL) was associated with postoperative AKI (odds ratio [OR] 3.76, p=0.027) and CKD progression (OR 2.87, p<0.001) after adjusting for other factors. Conclusions Serum albumin level <4.1 g/dL was associated with short- and long-term renal function decline after RC, suggesting that close monitoring of renal function after RC might be considered in these patients.

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.

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.

Enterococcus faecium, particularly in its multidrug-resistant forms, causes invasive nosocomial infections. Given the limited data comparing the effectiveness of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the CLSI clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for quinupristin–dalfopristin (QD) resistance and the need to evaluate their practical application, we retrospectively investigated the susceptibility patterns of 287 E.faecium bloodstream isolates from Korean hospitals to QD using the updated EUCAST and CLSI CBPs and two antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods: disk diffusion (DD) and Sensititre broth microdilution (Sensititre). QD resistance rates were 5.9% (CLSI) and 18.8% (EUCAST) for DD and 22.6% (CLSI) and 28.2% (EUCAST) for Sensititre. The most prevalent QD resistance gene types among QD-resistant isolates were ermB+msrC+ or ermB– msrC+. Categorical agreement between DD and Sensititre ranged from 77.7% to 90.7%, depending on the testing method and CBPs applied. The EUCAST zone diameter CBPs more effectively help identify QD-resistant E. faecium isolates using the DD method than the CLSI zone diameter CBPs. In comparison, the CLSI minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) CBPs provide more reliable results for resistance classification in the Sensititre method than EUCAST MIC CBPs. These findings would help improve clinical decision-making for treating multidrug-resistant E. faecium infections.

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.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and the optimal cutoff value of ADC for predicting NAC response. Materials and Methods: Among 582 patients who underwent radical cystectomy between December 2011 and December 2024, we included 146 patients who received preoperative NAC and pretreatment MRI. Pathologic response was determined based on the surgical pathology results: patients with pathologic stage >pT2 and/or presence of nodal involvement (N+) were classified as nonresponders, while those with ≤pT2 and no nodal involvement (N0) were classified as responders. MRI-derived ADC values were compared between the 2 groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal cutoff value for predicting NAC response. Multivariate logistic regression analysis using preoperative parameter was performed and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were utilized to assess overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) according to NAC response. Results: Among the 146 patients, 90 (61.6%) were classified as responders, 56 (38.4%) were nonresponders. The mean ADC value was significantly higher in responders (1,100.35±249.12 mm2/sec) than in nonresponders (763.95±118.97 mm2/sec, p<0.001). ROC analysis demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.69, with an optimal cutoff value of 845.0 mm2/sec. Multivariate logistic regression identified ADC value as an independent predictor of NAC response (odds ratio, 1.025; 95% confidence interval, 1.006–1.043; p=0.008). During median follow-up 30.3 months, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that responders had significantly better 5-year OS (80.8% vs. 45.9%) and 5-year CSS (92.6% vs. 54.5%), with log-rank test p<0.001. Conclusion MRI-derived ADC values are a reliable imaging biomarker for predicting pathologic response to NAC in MIBC. Further validation in large-scale prospective studies is required to confirm these findings.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the rate of germline variant detection following targeted cascade genetic testing among family members of prostate cancer (PCa) probands. Materials and Methods: Records of PCa patients with confirmed germline mutations and their family members recommended for cascade testing were retrospectively reviewed. Cascade testing for germline mutations identified in PCa probands was conducted among first-degree relatives (FDRs) and second-degree relatives. The rate of counseled family members who proceeded to actual testing, the proportion of mutation carriers detected, and the reasons for test refusal were analyzed. Clinical variables, including family history of malignancy and variant type, were also collected. Results: A total of 15 PCa patients and 44 eligible relatives were included in the final analysis. Eleven probands (73.3%) had a positive family history of cancer across 22 family members (18 FDRs). Among FDRs, breast/ovarian cancer (27.8%) and gastric cancer (22.2%) were the most common, followed by lymphoma, prostate, esophageal, and lung cancer (each 11.1%). Among probands, BRCA2 variants were predominant (80%, 12 of 15), followed by BRCA1 (n=2) and MLH1 (n=1) mutations. Of 41 eligible FDRs, 21 (51.2%) underwent genetic testing, and 61.9% (13 of 21) were found to carry identical germline mutations. Approximately half of the counseled family members declined testing due to concerns regarding privacy and disclosure, travel distance to the clinic, or loss to follow-up. Conclusion Over half of the FDRs who underwent cascade testing were confirmed to carry pathogenic germline variants. As the first study to evaluate cascade testing in family members of PCa probands in Korea, these findings underscore the strong heritable component of PCa and highlight the need to enhance participation in familial genetic screening.

Objective: To develop and validate a preoperative risk score incorporating carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CT, and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18F-FDG) PET/CT variables to predict recurrence-free survival (RFS) after upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Materials and Methods: Patients with resectable PDAC who underwent upfront surgery between 2014 and 2017 (development set) or between 2018 and 2019 (test set) were retrospectively evaluated. In the development set, a risk-scoring system was developed using the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, including variables associated with RFS. In the test set, the performance of the risk score was evaluated using the Harrell C-index and compared with that of the postoperative pathological tumor stage. Results: A total of 529 patients, including 335 (198 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 64 ± 9 years) and 194 (103 male; mean age, 66 ± 9 years) patients in the development and test sets, respectively, were evaluated. The risk score included five variables predicting RFS: tumor size (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29 per 1 cm increment; P < 0.001), maximal standardized uptake values of tumor ≥ 5.2 (HR, 1.29; P = 0.06), suspicious regional lymph nodes (HR, 1.43; P = 0.02), possible distant metastasis on 18F-FDG PET/CT (HR, 2.32; P = 0.03), and CA 19-9 (HR, 1.02 per 100 U/mL increment; P = 0.002). In the test set, the risk score showed good performance in predicting RFS (C-index, 0.61), similar to that of the pathologic tumor stage (C-index, 0.64; P = 0.17). Conclusion The proposed risk score based on preoperative CA 19-9, CT, and 18F-FDG PET/CT variables may have clinical utility in selecting high-risk patients with resectable PDAC.

Several recent studies have investigated the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for various cancers. However, HFRT for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with or without concurrent chemotherapy is not yet widely used because of concerns about serious side effects and the lack of evidence for improved treatment results. Investigations of HFRT with concurrent chemotherapy in NSCLC have usually been performed in single-arm studies and with a small number of patients, so there are not yet sufficient data. Therefore, the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology Practice Guidelines Committee planned this review article to summarize the evidence on HFRT so far and provide it to radiation oncology clinicians. In summary, HFRT has demonstrated promising results, and the reviewed data support its feasibility and comparable efficacy for the treatment of locally advanced NSCLC. The incidence and severity of esophageal toxicity have been identified as major concerns, particularly when treating large fraction sizes. Strategies, such as esophagus-sparing techniques, image guidance, and dose constraints, may help mitigate this problem and improve treatment tolerability. Continued research and clinical trials are essential to refine treatment strategies, identify optimal patient selection criteria, and enhance therapeutic outcomes.