Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the role of hepatic resection in patients with objective responses after combined transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiotherapy (RT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the patients treated with combined TACE and RT for HCC with MVI between 2010 and 2015. Some of the patients with objective responses underwent hepatic resection or liver transplantation; to investigate the impact of surgery, patients with objective responses who did not undergo surgery were selected as the control group. Survival outcomes were compared using a propensity score–based stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting method. Results: Out of the 170 patients with objective responses after combined TACE and RT, 41 patients underwent surgery, including eight liver transplantations. The unweighted surgery group was younger and had a higher proportion of solitary tumors and unilateral vascular involvement. After adjustment, the 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 61.0% and 28.6% in the surgery and non-surgery groups, respectively. The most important prognostic factor for OS was surgery (adjusted Cox hazard ratio [HR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.46; p < 0.001). Complete response after TACE and RT (vs. partial response) was also a significant prognostic factor for OS (adjusted HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.61; p < 0.001). There was no surgical mortality. Four patients (9.8%) required additional surgery due to bleeding or graft failure. Conclusion Hepatic resection was significantly associated with improved OS in patients who showed objective responses after receiving combined TACE and RT for HCC with MVI.

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.

Background/Aims: Various expanded criteria (EC) for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been proposed to avoid the narrow nature of the Milan criteria (MC). To investigate which EC predicts more favorable outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: A database search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify studies comparing OS and RFS between patients within the MC and those exceeding the MC but within the EC. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random-effects NMA and validated in an in-house cohort of 1,008 LT recipients. Results: Among 22,466 articles identified, 35 studies with 45 pairwise comparisons were included in the NMA along with 8 different EC. The University of California San Francisco (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19–1.71), Up-to-Seven (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15–1.97), and Hangzhou criteria (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.11–2.57) showed inferior OS to the MC. The MC ranked highest for both OS and RFS, followed by Metroticket 2.0 for OS and the Asan criteria for RFS. In the validation cohort, both Metroticket 2.0 and AFP model yielded more favorable HCC-specific mortality than other EC. Conclusions Several EC, of which those of Metroticket 2.0 were the best, yielded comparable outcomes to the MC. AFP-based EC such as Metroticket 2.0 and AFP model appeared to be useful in both the NMA and the validation cohort, suggesting a potential role in identifying selected low-risk patients beyond the MC.

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs) are early indicators of interstitial lung disease, often identified incidentally via computed tomography of the chest. This review explores the diagnostic criteria for ILAs as outlined by the Fleischner Society, highlights associated risk factors, examines their impact on patient outcomes, and discusses management strategies. The prevalence of ILAs varies significantly, ranging from 3% to 17% across populations. Key risk factors include advanced age, smoking status, and underlying genetic predispositions. Recent advancements in imaging analysis, particularly through automated quantitative systems, have enhanced the accuracy of ILA detection. Although often subtle in presentation, ILAs hold clinical significance due to their associations with impaired lung function, progressive fibrosis, and increased mortality. Therefore, monitoring and management plans should be individualized to the risk profile of patients. Further studies are needed to refine ILA diagnostic criteria, enhance our understanding of their clinical implications, and establish optimal timing for therapeutic interventions.

Background: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.

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.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.