1.The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0
Hyo Seon RYU ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Dong Hyun KANG ; Yoo-Kang KWAK ; Han Deok KWAK ; Yoon-Hye KWON ; Dalyon KIM ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Ji Hun KIM ; Jin Won KIM ; Tae Hyung KIM ; Hae Young KIM ; Soo Min NAM ; Gyoung Tae NOH ; Jun Woo BONG ; Nak Song SUNG ; Seon Hui SHIN ; Kil-Yong LEE ; Sung Chul LEE ; Sea-Won LEE ; Jung Won LEE ; Jong Min LEE ; Myung Hoon IHN ; Joo Han LIM ; Woong Bae JI ; Dae Hee PYO ; Young Ki HONG ; Jung-Myun KWAK ;
Annals of Coloproctology 2026;42(1):4-33
Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.
2.Clinical Outcomes and Use of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Ischemic Heart Failure Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction:A Retrospective Observational Study
Kyung Hoon CHO ; Ki Hong LEE ; Yong-Kyu LEE ; Seok OH ; Yongwhan LIM ; Joon Ho AHN ; Seung Hun LEE ; Dae Young HYUN ; Min Chul KIM ; Doo Sun SIM ; Young Joon HONG ; Ju Han KIM ; Youngkeun AHN ; Jang Hoon LEE ; Joo-Yong HAHN ; Yu-Ri KIM ; Nam Sik YOON ; Hyung Wook PARK ; Weon KIM ; Myung Ho JEONG ;
Chonnam Medical Journal 2026;62(2):55-63
Limited data exist regarding the real-world practices and clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs).Using nationwide registry data from South Korea, we aimed to investigate long-term outcomes and clinical practices, especially implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) implantation, in patients with reduced LVEFs at least 40 days after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Of 13,056 patients with AMI between 2011 and 2015, we analyzed 350 (median age, 66 years [interquartile range, 56-75]) who had LVEFs <40% on follow-up transthoracic echocardiogram 40 days after the index event. The primary outcome was cardiac-cause mortality at 3 years. Secondary outcomes comprised major cardiovascular events as well as outcomes defined by the use of ICDs, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds), and electrophysiology studies. Among 350 patients, 39 (11.1%) died from cardiac causes during 3 years of follow-up. Eleven (3.1%) were hospitalized for ventricular tachycardia. The rate of ICD or CRT-D implantation up to 3 years was 5.7% (20/350). Cox time-to-event analysis revealed older age, LVEF <30%, diabetes mellitus, and previous MI or revascularization as positively associated with cardiac death, whereas the use of statins and body weight <67 kg were negatively associated. This nationwide Korean registry demonstrated that only 5.7% of patients who had reduced LVEFs after 40 days of AMI underwent ICD implantations over 3 years. Considering the high mortality, concerted efforts are needed to improve clinical outcomes for patients who may have been candidates for ICD implantation.
3.Erratum: Guidelines for the Use of Botulinum Toxin in Otolaryngology From the Korean Society of Laryngology, Phoniatrics and Logopedics Guideline Task Force
; Myung Jin BAN ; Chang Hwan RYU ; Joo Hyun WOO ; Young Chan LEE ; Dong Kun LEE ; Minsu KWON ; Yong Tae HONG ; Gil Joon LEE ; Hyung Kwon BYEON ; Seung Ho CHOI ; Seung Won LEE
Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology 2026;19(2):209-209
4.Better Chemotherapeutic Response of Small Cell Lung Cancer in Never Smokers than in Smokers
Ha-Young PARK ; Hyung-Joo OH ; Hwa Kyung PARK ; Joon-Young YOON ; Chang-Seok YOON ; Bo Gun KHO ; Tae-Ok KIM ; Hong-Joon SHIN ; Chul-Kyu PARK ; Yong-Soo KWON ; Yu-Il KIM ; Sung-Chul LIM ; Young-Chul KIM ; In-Jae OH
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2025;88(2):334-341
Background:
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021.
Results:
Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.
5.Better Chemotherapeutic Response of Small Cell Lung Cancer in Never Smokers than in Smokers
Ha-Young PARK ; Hyung-Joo OH ; Hwa Kyung PARK ; Joon-Young YOON ; Chang-Seok YOON ; Bo Gun KHO ; Tae-Ok KIM ; Hong-Joon SHIN ; Chul-Kyu PARK ; Yong-Soo KWON ; Yu-Il KIM ; Sung-Chul LIM ; Young-Chul KIM ; In-Jae OH
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2025;88(2):334-341
Background:
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021.
Results:
Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.
6.Better Chemotherapeutic Response of Small Cell Lung Cancer in Never Smokers than in Smokers
Ha-Young PARK ; Hyung-Joo OH ; Hwa Kyung PARK ; Joon-Young YOON ; Chang-Seok YOON ; Bo Gun KHO ; Tae-Ok KIM ; Hong-Joon SHIN ; Chul-Kyu PARK ; Yong-Soo KWON ; Yu-Il KIM ; Sung-Chul LIM ; Young-Chul KIM ; In-Jae OH
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2025;88(2):334-341
Background:
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021.
Results:
Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.
7.Better Chemotherapeutic Response of Small Cell Lung Cancer in Never Smokers than in Smokers
Ha-Young PARK ; Hyung-Joo OH ; Hwa Kyung PARK ; Joon-Young YOON ; Chang-Seok YOON ; Bo Gun KHO ; Tae-Ok KIM ; Hong-Joon SHIN ; Chul-Kyu PARK ; Yong-Soo KWON ; Yu-Il KIM ; Sung-Chul LIM ; Young-Chul KIM ; In-Jae OH
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2025;88(2):334-341
Background:
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021.
Results:
Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.
8.Better Chemotherapeutic Response of Small Cell Lung Cancer in Never Smokers than in Smokers
Ha-Young PARK ; Hyung-Joo OH ; Hwa Kyung PARK ; Joon-Young YOON ; Chang-Seok YOON ; Bo Gun KHO ; Tae-Ok KIM ; Hong-Joon SHIN ; Chul-Kyu PARK ; Yong-Soo KWON ; Yu-Il KIM ; Sung-Chul LIM ; Young-Chul KIM ; In-Jae OH
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2025;88(2):334-341
Background:
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021.
Results:
Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.
9.Does Music Have a Calming Effect on Pain and Anxiety in Patients Undergoing Cystoscopy?
Ye Chan JOO ; Ji Eun YU ; Jae Hyun BAIK ; Young Seop CHANG ; Jin Bum KIM ; Hyung Joon KIM ; Dong Hoon KOH ; Hong Wook KIM
Urogenital Tract Infection 2024;19(1):3-9
Purpose:
Cystoscopy is a diagnostic test performed frequently in urology outpatient clinics. Despite the large number of inspections, the associated pain, discomfort, or anxiety can markedly affect patient compliance and adherence to subsequent surveillance protocols. This study conducted a prospective, randomized study to investigate the potential efficacy of music and pyuria on pain or anxiety during outpatient cystoscopy.
Materials and Methods:
In this single-institution, randomized study, the participants were assigned to a music-intervention or non-music control group. The music-intervention group underwent an identical procedure with the addition of Johann Sebastian Bach’s “Air on the G String” from Suite No. 3 in D major, BWV 1068. Urinalysis was performed to determine if pyuria affects pain during the procedure.
Results:
The patient-reported outcomes, encompassing the changes in the STAI-X-1 (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-X-1) scores, subjective levels of discomfort, embarrassment, satisfaction, and pain, were similar in the two groups. In contrast, the surgeons reported statistically significant differences in their evaluations of the same items as patient-reported outcomes of the two groups. The patient-reported pain showed no significant differences between the pyuria-negative group (0-2 and 3-5 WBC/HPF) and pyuria-positive group (>5 WBC/HPF).
Conclusions
The data from this study do not support the hypothesis that musical intervention during cystoscopy alleviates pain or anxiety to any significant extent.In addition, pyuria did not affect the patient’s reported pain. Nevertheless, a notable impact was observed in the surgeons’ assessments, suggesting that the musical accompaniment may alter the surgeons’ perception of patient pain and anxiety levels throughout the procedure.
10.Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers
Hyung Sun KIM ; Mee Joo KANG ; Jingu KANG ; Kyubo KIM ; Bohyun KIM ; Seong-Hun KIM ; Soo Jin KIM ; Yong-Il KIM ; Joo Young KIM ; Jin Sil KIM ; Haeryoung KIM ; Hyo Jung KIM ; Ji Hae NAHM ; Won Suk PARK ; Eunkyu PARK ; Joo Kyung PARK ; Jin Myung PARK ; Byeong Jun SONG ; Yong Chan SHIN ; Keun Soo AHN ; Sang Myung WOO ; Jeong Il YU ; Changhoon YOO ; Kyoungbun LEE ; Dong Ho LEE ; Myung Ah LEE ; Seung Eun LEE ; Ik Jae LEE ; Huisong LEE ; Jung Ho IM ; Kee-Taek JANG ; Hye Young JANG ; Sun-Young JUN ; Hong Jae CHON ; Min Kyu JUNG ; Yong Eun CHUNG ; Jae Uk CHONG ; Eunae CHO ; Eui Kyu CHIE ; Sae Byeol CHOI ; Seo-Yeon CHOI ; Seong Ji CHOI ; Joon Young CHOI ; Hye-Jeong CHOI ; Seung-Mo HONG ; Ji Hyung HONG ; Tae Ho HONG ; Shin Hye HWANG ; In Gyu HWANG ; Joon Seong PARK
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(2):161-202
Background:
s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021.
Methods:
Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop.
Results:
In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing.
Conclusions
The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail