Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a stroke subtype with high mortality and poor functional outcomes. Prompt occlusion of a ruptured aneurysm at an early stage is crucial to prevent rebleeding, which can result in even higher mortality and more severe disabilities. The most critical initial decision in SAH management is the choice of treatment method with surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline to select the optimal initial treatment in patients with SAH. We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer two population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions comparing clipping and coiling. The risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcome and mortality. We included six randomized control trials (RCTs) and 58 observational studies. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that coiling improved functional outcomes compared to clipping (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.97). No significant mortality difference was observed in RCTs (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.91–2.09), but non-RCTs favored clipping for reduced mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69–0.86). However, it is difficult to generalize these findings to all clinical situations, as patients with SAH have a highly variable clinical course. Final treatment decision should be tailored to the individual patient’s status, including aneurysm location, morphology, and the expertise available at the treatment center. Such decisions are best made by specialists such as a board-certified physician and should be explained to the patient and their caregivers, along with the rationale for selecting the most appropriate treatment at the given hospital. Korea has many certified endovascular neurosurgeons, cerebrovascular surgeons, and certified cerebrovascular centers. Proper selection of the most suitable treatment method by certified physicians and centers would greatly benefit patient outcomes and healthcare professionals.

Accurate and early identification of stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) in emergency settings is essential for improving patient outcomes and ensuring the efficient allocation of medical resources. This clinical practice guideline systematically reviews domestic and international literature and conducts meta-analyses to evaluate the utility and diagnostic accuracy of stroke assessment tools used in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS). We developed a guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic EMS assessment tools for diagnosing stroke and LVO. Overall, 70 non-randomized control studies were selected for this study. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup analysis to distinguish between patients with stroke and those with LVO. EMS tools demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for diagnosing stroke. In the prehospital setting, using validated EMS stroke assessment tools is recommended for the early identification of stroke and LVO. Upon hospital arrival, stroke specialists should conduct further evaluation and triage to confirm the diagnosis and guide appropriate management. Delays in diagnosing LVO are frequently unacceptable. While experts advocate for the use of EMS assessment tools to facilitate early identification of LVO, these tools alone lack adequate sensitivity. Therefore, further diagnostic evaluations and consultation with stroke specialists upon hospital arrival are recommended.

The mothership (MS) model, where patients are directly transferred to a thrombectomy-capable center, and the drip-and-ship (DS) model, where thrombolysis is initiated at the nearest primary stroke center before transfer for thrombectomy, are the primary transport modes for patients with stroke. We aimed to establish guidelines for selecting the appropriate transfer strategy based on emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO). We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions comparing MS and DS models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcomes, mortality, and successful recanalization. Twenty-six non-randomized controlled studies showed that the MS model improved good functional outcomes by approximately 14% compared with the DS model (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.30). Fifteen studies reported that mortality in the MS and DS models showed no significant differences (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.11). Twenty-four studies revealed no significant difference in successful recanalization between the MS and DS models (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68–1.10). The MS model should be considered first to improve the functional outcome of patients with LVO. However, if thrombectomy cannot be performed immediately after thrombolysis, or if a thrombectomy-enabled hospital is not nearby, the DS model should be considered by stroke specialists depending on transportation time and regional factors. We suggest a mixed approach with the DS model based on specific circumstances or regions to ensure the optimum treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Appropriate transport for patients with LVO improves the prognosis of AIS.

Purpose: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with upfront FOLFIRINOX followed by local-regional therapy (LRT), surgical resection (SR), and radiotherapy (RT). We aimed to identify specific patient subgroups for which RT may serve as a reasonable alternative to SR for local tumor control. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 116 patients (SR group, n= 70; RT group, n= 46) at a single center between 2015 and 2020. Survival outcomes were compared based on LRT modalities, focusing on identifying subgroups in which RT provided an efficacy comparable to that of SR. Results: Among 116 patients, the SR group achieved a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (OS) than the RT group (27.1% vs. 8.7%, P< 0.0001), despite similar progression-free survival (P= 0.23). Significant prognostic factors for OS included carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) response in BRPC (P= 0.02) and radiologic partial response in LAPC (P= 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that, while SR provided a survival advantage in CA19-9 responders, no significant difference in OS was observed between SR and RT in CA19-9 non-responders (P= 0.37). Conclusion Although surgery remains the gold standard, RT may be considered a justifiable local alternative for CA19-9 non-responders and surgically ineligible patients with LAPC, yielding comparable outcomes in these specific, biologically unfavorable subgroups.

Multiple myeloma (MM), a hematological malignancy, is characterized by malignant plasma cell proliferation in the bone marrow. Recent treatment advances have significantly improved patient outcomes associated with MM.In this study, we aimed to develop comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treat‑ ment of MM. We identified 12 key clinical questions essential for MM management, guiding the extensive literature review and meta-analysis of the study. Our guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations by integrating patient preferences with survey data. These recommendations include current and emerging diagnostic tools, thera‑ peutic agents, and treatment strategies. By prioritizing a patient-centered approach and rigorous data analysis, these guidelines were developed to enhance MM management, both in Korea and globally.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

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.