1.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
2.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
3.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
4.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
5.Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Postoperative Quality of Life According to Type of Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
Sung Eun OH ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Ji Yeong AN ; Keun Won RYU ; In CHO ; Sung Geun KIM ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Hoon HUR ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Sun-Hwi HWANG ; Hong Man YOON ; Ki Bum PARK ; Hyoung-Il KIM ; In Gyu KWON ; Han-Kwang YANG ; Byoung-Jo SUH ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Tae-Han KIM ; Oh Kyoung KWON ; Hye Seong AHN ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Ki Young YOON ; Myoung Won SON ; Seong-Ho KONG ; Young-Gil SON ; Geum Jong SONG ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Jung-Min BAE ; Do Joong PARK ; Sol LEE ; Jun-Young YANG ; Kyung Won SEO ; You-Jin JANG ; So Hyun KANG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Joongyub LEE ; Hyuk-Joon LEE ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):382-399
Purpose:
This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
Results:
Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064).
Conclusions
Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.
6.Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Postoperative Quality of Life According to Type of Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
Sung Eun OH ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Ji Yeong AN ; Keun Won RYU ; In CHO ; Sung Geun KIM ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Hoon HUR ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Sun-Hwi HWANG ; Hong Man YOON ; Ki Bum PARK ; Hyoung-Il KIM ; In Gyu KWON ; Han-Kwang YANG ; Byoung-Jo SUH ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Tae-Han KIM ; Oh Kyoung KWON ; Hye Seong AHN ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Ki Young YOON ; Myoung Won SON ; Seong-Ho KONG ; Young-Gil SON ; Geum Jong SONG ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Jung-Min BAE ; Do Joong PARK ; Sol LEE ; Jun-Young YANG ; Kyung Won SEO ; You-Jin JANG ; So Hyun KANG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Joongyub LEE ; Hyuk-Joon LEE ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):382-399
Purpose:
This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
Results:
Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064).
Conclusions
Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.
7.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
8.Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Postoperative Quality of Life According to Type of Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
Sung Eun OH ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Ji Yeong AN ; Keun Won RYU ; In CHO ; Sung Geun KIM ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Hoon HUR ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Sun-Hwi HWANG ; Hong Man YOON ; Ki Bum PARK ; Hyoung-Il KIM ; In Gyu KWON ; Han-Kwang YANG ; Byoung-Jo SUH ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Tae-Han KIM ; Oh Kyoung KWON ; Hye Seong AHN ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Ki Young YOON ; Myoung Won SON ; Seong-Ho KONG ; Young-Gil SON ; Geum Jong SONG ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Jung-Min BAE ; Do Joong PARK ; Sol LEE ; Jun-Young YANG ; Kyung Won SEO ; You-Jin JANG ; So Hyun KANG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Joongyub LEE ; Hyuk-Joon LEE ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):382-399
Purpose:
This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
Results:
Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064).
Conclusions
Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.
9.Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment
Hyo Seon RYU ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Woong Bae JI ; Byung Chang KIM ; Ji Hun KIM ; Sung Kyung MOON ; Sung Il KANG ; Han Deok KWAK ; Eun Sun KIM ; Chang Hyun KIM ; Tae Hyung KIM ; Gyoung Tae NOH ; Byung-Soo PARK ; Hyeung-Min PARK ; Jeong Mo BAE ; Jung Hoon BAE ; Ni Eun SEO ; Chang Hoon SONG ; Mi Sun AHN ; Jae Seon EO ; Young Chul YOON ; Joon-Kee YOON ; Kyung Ha LEE ; Kyung Hee LEE ; Kil-Yong LEE ; Myung Su LEE ; Sung Hak LEE ; Jong Min LEE ; Ji Eun LEE ; Han Hee LEE ; Myong Hoon IHN ; Je-Ho JANG ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Kum Ju CHAE ; Jin-Ho CHOI ; Dae Hee PYO ; Gi Won HA ; Kyung Su HAN ; Young Ki HONG ; Chang Won HONG ; Jung-Myun KWAK ;
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(2):89-113
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.
10.Correction: 2023 Korean Society of Echocardiography position paper for diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, part I: aortic valve disease
Sun Hwa LEE ; Se Jung YOON ; Byung Joo SUN ; Hyue Mee KIM ; Hyung Yoon KIM ; Sahmin LEE ; Chi Young SHIM ; Eun Kyoung KIM ; Dong Hyuk CHO ; Jun Bean PARK ; Jeong Sook SEO ; Jung Woo SON ; In Cheol KIM ; Sang Hyun LEE ; Ran HEO ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Jae Hyeong PARK ; Jong Min SONG ; Sang Chol LEE ; Hyungseop KIM ; Duk Hyun KANG ; Jong Won HA ; Kye Hun KIM ;
Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2024;32(1):34-

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail