1.Are the long-term oncologic outcomes different between appendiceal cancer and right-sided colon cancer? An exact matching analysis of a 10-year institutional cohort
Gunwoo LEE ; Eun Jung PARK ; Soo Young OH ; Young Il KIM ; Min Hyun KIM ; Jong Lyul LEE ; Chan Wook KIM ; Yong Sik YOON ; In Ja PARK ; Seok-Byung LIM ; Chang Sik YU
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2026;110(4):246-258
Purpose:
Due to its rarity, treatment guidelines for appendiceal cancer have traditionally followed those established for colorectal cancer, despite showing distinct histologic and clinical features. This study aimed to compare the clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term oncologic outcomes of appendiceal cancer with those of right-sided colon cancers.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with stage I–III appendiceal, cecal, or ascending colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2010 and 2020 at our center. A 1:3:3 exact matching for age, sex, TNM stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy was performed. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods.
Results:
Overall, 245 patients with appendiceal cancer (n = 35), ascending colon cancer (n = 105), and cecal cancer (n = 105) were analyzed. Appendiceal cancer exhibited a higher proportion of T4 tumors and fewer harvested lymph nodes compared with ascending or cecal cancers. The mean follow-up duration was 9.5 years. The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were lower in appendiceal cancer (66.2% and 52.9%) than in ascending (91.2% and 78.4%) or cecal cancer (88.5% and 78.3%). Similarly, the 10-year disease-free survival rate was lower in appendiceal cancer (59.2%) compared with ascending (83.1%) and cecal cancers (78.4%). Cox regression analysis identified age (≥65 years), perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion as independent predictors of poor prognosis.
Conclusion
Appendiceal cancer exhibited significantly worse long-term survival compared to cecal or ascending colon cancer. Tumor perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion were adverse prognostic factors for overall and disease-free survival.
2.Real-World Efficacy of Intravesical Gemcitabine for BCG-Unresponsive Non–muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Hye Won LEE ; Eui Hyun JUNG ; Kyung Hwan KIM ; Hong Koo HA ; Jong Jin OH ; Seok Ho KANG ; Seung-hwan JEONG ; Hyeong Dong YUK ; Ji Eun HEO ; Won Sik HAM ; Eu Chang HWANG ; Seung Il JUNG ; Wan SONG ; Bumjin LIM ; Bumsik HONG ; Byung Chang JEONG ; Ho Kyung SEO
Cancer Research and Treatment 2026;58(2):591-602
Purpose:
This study aimed to report the real-world outcomes of intravesical gemcitabine for bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC) in Korean patients who were unable or unwilling to undergo radical cystectomy (RC).
Materials and Methods:
This retrospective study included 131 patients (median age, 69 years; 88.5% men) treated with intravesical gemcitabine for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC at nine centers between May 2019 and April 2022. The primary endpoint was 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). The secondary endpoints included factors influencing RFS, progression-free survival (PFS), cystectomy- free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk factors for recurrence were assessed using Cox regression models.
Results:
Patients were followed up for a median duration of 25 months, with carcinoma in situ (CIS) in 41.9% of the patients. The 1-year and 2-year RFS rates were 68% and 42%, while the 1-year and 2-year PFS rates were 87% and 77%, respectively. No significant factors influencing RFS were identified. Seventeen patients underwent RC during a median follow-up of 16 months, with the condition in three patients progressing to muscle-invasive disease on final pathological analysis. The 2-year CSS and OS rates were 98% and 97%, respectively. Intravesical gemcitabine was well-tolerated, with only seven patients (5.3%) unable to complete the full induction course.
Conclusion
Our research highlights the potential of intravesical gemcitabine as a viable bladder-sparing treatment option for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC, providing real-world evidence on its safety, efficacy, and tolerability.
3.Impact of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels on Atherosclerotic Vascular Changes: Analysis of Korean Treat Stroke to Target Trial
Sang Hee HA ; Jae-Chan RYU ; Sung Hee AHN ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Sang Min SUNG ; Tae-Jin SONG ; Kyung Bok LEE ; Eung-Gyu KIM ; Yong-Won KIM ; Ji Hoe HEO ; Man Seok PARK ; Kyusik KANG ; Byung-Chul LEE ; Keun-Sik HONG ; Oh Young BANG ; Jei KIM ; Jong S. KIM
Journal of Stroke 2026;28(2):330-333
4.Clinical Guideline for the Use of Biodegradable Rectal Spacers During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
Hyun Ho HAN ; Jong Kyou KWON ; Do Kyung KIM ; Jin Hyung JEON ; Chan Woo WEE ; Jae Ho CHO ; Ji Hee JUNG ; A Young YOO ; Jae Young JOUNG ; Gee Hyun SONG ; Seung Ju LEE ; Won PARK ; Chan Kyo KIM ; Young Seok KIM ; Yeon Joo KIM ; Ah Ram CHANG ; Jae Sik KIM ; Sung Hwan BAE ; Byoung Kyu HAN ; Kang Su CHO
Journal of Urologic Oncology 2026;24(1):3-12
Purpose:
Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT.
Materials and Methods:
This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system.
Results:
Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised.
Conclusion
Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.
5.Postoperative Readmission Is Associated With Worse Oncologic Outcomes After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Multicenter Study of 3,972 Patients
Jungwon PARK ; Jong Ho PARK ; Sangchul LEE ; Seung-Hwan JEONG ; Ja Hyeon KU ; Kyung Hwan KIM ; Jong Kil NAM ; Bumjin LIM ; BumSik HONG ; Wook NAM ; Sung Gu KANG ; Seok Ho KANG ; Tae Gyun KWON ; Tae-Hwan KIM ; Jieun HEO ; Won Sik HAM ; Geehyun SONG ; Ho Kyung SEO ; Wan SONG ; Hyun Hwan SUNG ; Byong Chang JEONG ; Jong Jin OH
Journal of Urologic Oncology 2026;24(1):69-78
Purpose:
Radical cystectomy (RC) is associated with substantial postoperative morbidity, and unplanned readmission remains common despite advances in perioperative management. However, the association between postoperative readmission due to complications and oncologic outcomes after RC for bladder cancer has not been clearly defined. We evaluated the impact of postoperative readmission on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) after RC for bladder cancer.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed 3,972 patients who underwent RC for bladder cancer in a multicenter cohort. Postoperative readmission was defined as unplanned hospitalization within 90 days postsurgery due to surgery-related complications. Survival outcomes were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of OS and CSS.
Results:
Among the study population, 916 patients (23.1%) experienced postoperative readmission. Baseline and perioperative characteristics were generally comparable between patients with and without readmission. Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated significantly worse OS and CSS among patients who experienced postoperative readmission (both log-rank p<0.001). In multivariable analyses adjusting for clinicopathological factors, postoperative readmission remained independently associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.654; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.464–1.868; p<0.001) and CSS (HR, 1.761; 95% CI, 1.509–2.055; p<0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative readmission within 90 days after RC was independently associated with inferior long-term oncologic outcomes. These findings suggest the importance of strategies aimed at preventing postoperative complications and subsequent readmission.
6.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
7.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
8.Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level, the Lower the Better? Analysis of Korean Patients in the Treat Stroke to Target Trial
Hanim KWON ; Jae-Chan RYU ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Sang Min SUNG ; Tae-Jin SONG ; Kyung Bok LEE ; Eung-Gyu KIM ; Yong-Won KIM ; Ji Hoe HEO ; Man Seok PARK ; Kyusik KANG ; Byung-Chul LEE ; Keun-Sik HONG ; Oh Young BANG ; Jei KIM ; Jong S. KIM
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(2):228-236
Background:
and Purpose The Treat Stroke to Target (TST) was a randomized clinical trial involving French and Korean patients demonstrating that a lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, <70 mg/dL) target group (LT) experienced fewer cerebro-cardiovascular events than a higher target (90–110 mg/dL) group (HT). However, whether these results can be applied to Asian patients with different ischemic stroke subtypes remains unclear.
Methods:
Patients from 14 South Korean centers were analyzed separately. Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack with evidence of atherosclerosis were randomized into LT and HT groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary or cerebral revascularization, and cardiovascular death.
Results:
Among 712 enrolled patients, the mean LDL-C level was 71.0 mg/dL in 357 LT patients and 86.1 mg/dL in 355 HT patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 24 (6.7%) of LT and in 31 (8.7%) of HT group patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.45–1.33, P=0.353). Cardiovascular events alone occurred significantly less frequently in the LT than in the HT group (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.80, P=0.019), whereas there were no significant differences in ischemic stroke events (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60–2.10, P=0.712). The benefit of LT was less apparent in patients with small vessel disease and intracranial atherosclerosis than in those with extracranial atherosclerosis.
Conclusion
In contrast to the French TST, the outcomes in Korean patients were neutral. Although LT was more effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases, it was not so in stroke prevention, probably attributed to the differences in stroke subtypes. Further studies are needed to elucidate the efficacy of statins and appropriate LDL-C targets in Asian patients with stroke.
9.Switch to Rosuvastatin Plus Ezetimibe From Statin Monotherapy to Achieve Target LDL-Cholesterol Goal: A Multi-Center, Open-Label, Single-Arm Trial
Hong-Kyun PARK ; Jong-Ho PARK ; Hee-Kwon PARK ; Kyusik KANG ; Keun-Hwa JUNG ; Beom Joon KIM ; Jin-Man JUNG ; Young Seo KIM ; Yong-Seok LEE ; Hyo Suk NAM ; Yeonju YU ; Juneyoung LEE ; Keun-Sik HONG
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(2):275-278
10.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail