1.Molecular determinants of outcome to gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer
Daeseong KIM ; Nam Suk SIM ; Seonjeong WOO ; Min Hwan KIM ; Choong-kun LEE ; Seung Soo HONG ; Sung Hyun KIM ; Ho Kyoung HWANG ; Chang Moo KANG ; Woo Jung LEE ; Jung Hyun JO ; Taek CHUNG ; Sohyun HWANG ; Beodeul KANG ; Jung Sun KIM ; Chang-Il KWON ; Sangwoo KIM ; Hong Jae CHON ; Chang Gon KIM ; Young Nyun PARK ; Hye Jin CHOI
Clinical and Molecular Hepatology 2026;32(2):721-736
Background/Aims:
Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. We investigated genomic determinants of clinical benefit from gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in advanced BTC.
Methods:
Clinical and genomic data using TruSight Oncology 500 were analyzed from patients treated with GAP (N=198) or GC (N=89) as first-line therapy.
Results:
With a median follow-up of 33.0 months, GAP modestly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.764; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.591–0.989) without significant overall survival (OS) difference compared to GC. Genomic profiling revealed frequent alterations in TP53 (35.2%), KRAS (16.4%), SMAD4 (10.5%), and TNFRSF14 (10.5%), involving RTK/RAS (44.3%), TP53 (41.8%), and PI3K (20.2%) pathways. Single-gene mutations did not predict treatment benefit. However, pathway-level analysis identified PI3K pathway activation as significantly associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.148; 95% CI 1.478–3.124) and OS (HR 2.096; 95% CI 1.413–3.109) in patients receiving GAP, an effect not observed with GC. Importantly, GAP conferred clinical benefit only in patients without PI3K pathway activation, while no survival advantage was seen in those with such alterations (Pinteraction=0.023 for PFS, Pinteraction=0.003 for OS). Similar results were obtained in the independent validation cohort treated with GAP (N=103) or GC (N=64) for BTC.
Conclusions
Genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing identified PI3K pathway activation as key molecular determinant that differentiates patient outcomes between GAP and GC treatments in advanced BTC.
2.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
4.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
5.Experiences of healthcare providers and patients with diabetes mellitus regarding continuous glucose monitoring use in South Korea: a multicenter, cross-sectional survey study
Young-Jin CHOI ; Jung-Hwa LEE ; Kyu-Jeung AHN ; Ho-Yeon CHUNG ; Ji Eun JUN ; You-Cheol HWANG ; Hyuk-Sang KWON ; Young NA ; Jae-Hyeon KIM ; Kang-Hee SIM ; Kun-Ho YOON ; Bok-Rye SONG ; In-Kyung JEONG
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):60-
Background:
Despite the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, limited data exist on their perceived benefits and challenges among patients and healthcare providers. This study explored CGM-related experiences in South Korea.
Methods:
An anonymous online survey was conducted between January and December 2021 at four university hospitals. Respondents included patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), physicians, and DM education nurses. The survey assessed the use of CGM, its benefits, and barriers. Most devices were first-generation CGMs: FreeStyle Libre 1 (Abbott Diabetes Care), Dexcom G6 (Dexcom Inc.), and Medtronic Guardian 3 (Medtronic MiniMed).
Results:
Among 1,010 patients (33.4% with type 1 DM [T1DM], 63.6% with type 2 DM [T2DM], and 3.1% others; mean age, 51.4±14.6 years), 92.7% found CGM helpful. Although 59.6% reported discomfort, 81.9% intended to continue using CGM, indicating that perceived benefits outweighed barriers. The key advantages were glucose monitoring without finger pricks (T1DM, 57.9%; T2DM, 56.2%) and maintenance of target glucose levels. Discomfort was related to discomfort during activities (53.8%), skin problems (45.0%), and pain (43.0%). Healthcare provider recommendations were associated with reduced discomfort (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.60). Physicians (n=29) cited high costs as the main barrier (T1DM, 58.9%; T2DM, 64.8%); only 51.9% and 14.5% prescribed CGM for T1DM and T2DM, respectively. Insulin adjustment and glucose control were the main reasons for prescription, while cost (89.3%) and limited consultation time (67.9%) were barriers. DM educators (n=9) reported heavy workloads, with training and follow-up times averaging 31.7±7.5 minutes and 21.7±9.7 minutes, respectively; 77.8% of DM educators identified frequent patient inquiries as their greatest burden.
Conclusion
CGM provides significant clinical benefits but is limited by discomfort, costs, and educational burden. Sustained adoption requires device improvements, insurance support, and workforce expansion.
6.Development of a blocking ELISA for detection of Japanese encephalitis virus antibodies in pig and horse sera
Dong-Kun YANG ; Eun-Ju KIM ; Sang Ho JANG ; Hye Jung LEE ; Bitna KIM ; Jin A LEE ; Ju-Yeon LEE ; Yun Sang CHO
Korean Journal of Veterinary Research 2024;64(3):e26-
Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) is a mosquito-borne virus that can infect pigs, horses, and other mammals, including humans. Sero-epidemiological investigations of JEV have been performed using hemagglutination inhibition (HI), virus neutralization (VN) tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). A need exists for a new ELISA that can detect JEV antibodies in the sera of several animal species. We aimed to develop a blocking ELISA (B-ELISA) for detecting JEV antibodies in pig and horse serum samples. JEV antibodies in 218 pig and 315 horse serum samples were measured using HI and VN tests. The purified KV1899-306 strain was used as an antigen for B-ELISA. The purified antibody (7A13) was conjugated with horseradish peroxidase and used as a detector antibody. The sera of pigs and horses to measure antibody against JEV were subjected to B-ELISA and analyzed. The B-ELISA had a diagnostic sensitivity of 94.6% to 100%, a specificity of 91.2 to 100%, and an accuracy of 94.9 to 98.6% compared with those of the HI and VN tests in pig and horse sera. The B-ELISA had a higher correlation with pig sera (r = 0.89 and 0.90 for VN and HI) than with horse sera (r = 0.75 and to 0.79). The new B-ELISA could be useful in the sero-surveillance of JEV in pig and horse sera and replace indirect ELISA.
7.Cohort profile: Multicenter Networks for Ideal Outcomes of Rare Pediatric Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases in Korea (OUTSPREAD study)
Yun Jeong LEE ; Chong Kun CHEON ; Junghwan SUH ; Jung-Eun MOON ; Moon Bae AHN ; Seong Hwan CHANG ; Jieun LEE ; Jin Ho CHOI ; Minsun KIM ; Han Hyuk LIM ; Jaehyun KIM ; Shin-Hye KIM ; Hae Sang LEE ; Yena LEE ; Eungu KANG ; Se Young KIM ; Yong Hee HONG ; Seung YANG ; Heon-Seok HAN ; Sochung CHUNG ; Won Kyoung CHO ; Eun Young KIM ; Jin Kyung KIM ; Kye Shik SHIM ; Eun-Gyong YOO ; Hae Soon KIM ; Aram YANG ; Sejin KIM ; Hyo-Kyoung NAM ; Sung Yoon CHO ; Young Ah LEE
Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism 2024;29(6):349-355
Rare endocrine diseases are complex conditions that require lifelong specialized care due to their chronic nature and associated long-term complications. In Korea, a lack of nationwide data on clinical practice and outcomes has limited progress in patient care. Therefore, the Multicenter Networks for Ideal Outcomes of Pediatric Rare Endocrine and Metabolic Disease (OUTSPREAD) study was initiated. This study involves 30 centers across Korea. The study aims to improve the long-term prognosis of Korean patients with rare endocrine diseases by collecting comprehensive clinical data, biospecimens, and patient-reported outcomes to identify complications and unmet needs in patient care. Patients with childhood-onset pituitary, adrenal, or gonadal disorders, such as craniopharyngioma, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Turner syndrome were prioritized. The planned enrollment is 1,300 patients during the first study phase (2022–2024). Clinical, biochemical, and imaging data from diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up during 1980–2023 were retrospectively reviewed. For patients who agreed to participate in the prospective cohort, clinical data and biospecimens will be prospectively collected to discover ideal biomarkers that predict the effectiveness of disease control measures and prognosis. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and depression scales, will be evaluated to assess psychosocial outcomes. Additionally, a substudy on CAH patients will develop a steroid hormone profiling method using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to improve diagnosis and monitoring of treatment outcomes. This study will address unmet clinical needs by discovering ideal biomarkers, introducing evidence-based treatment guidelines, and ultimately improving long-term outcomes in the areas of rare endocrine and metabolic diseases.
8.Clinical Practice Recommendations for the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients with Solid Cancer: A Joint Report from KSMO and KSP
Miso KIM ; Hyo Sup SHIM ; Sheehyun KIM ; In Hee LEE ; Jihun KIM ; Shinkyo YOON ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Inkeun PARK ; Jae Ho JEONG ; Changhoon YOO ; Jaekyung CHEON ; In-Ho KIM ; Jieun LEE ; Sook Hee HONG ; Sehhoon PARK ; Hyun Ae JUNG ; Jin Won KIM ; Han Jo KIM ; Yongjun CHA ; Sun Min LIM ; Han Sang KIM ; Choong-kun LEE ; Jee Hung KIM ; Sang Hoon CHUN ; Jina YUN ; So Yeon PARK ; Hye Seung LEE ; Yong Mee CHO ; Soo Jeong NAM ; Kiyong NA ; Sun Och YOON ; Ahwon LEE ; Kee-Taek JANG ; Hongseok YUN ; Sungyoung LEE ; Jee Hyun KIM ; Wan-Seop KIM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(3):721-742
In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.
9.Varlitinib and Paclitaxel for EGFR/HER2 Co-expressing Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Phase Ib/II Study (K-MASTER-13)
Dong-Hoe KOO ; Minkyu JUNG ; Yeul Hong KIM ; Hei-Cheul JEUNG ; Dae Young ZANG ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Hyunki KIM ; Hyo Song KIM ; Choong-kun LEE ; Woo Sun KWON ; Hyun Cheol CHUNG ; Sun Young RHA
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(4):1136-1145
Purpose:
Varlitinib is a pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) inhibitor targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and HER4. We present a phase Ib/II study of a combination of varlitinib and weekly paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing advanced gastric cancer (AGC).
Materials and Methods:
Patients whose tumors with EGFR and HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry (≥ 1+) were enrolled. Varlitinib and paclitaxel were investigated every 4 weeks. After determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in phase Ib, a phase II study was conducted to evaluate the antitumor activity.
Results:
RP2D was treated with a combination of varlitinib (300 mg twice daily) and paclitaxel. Among 27 patients treated with RP2D, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 3.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 4.9) and 7.9 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 10.8), respectively, with a median follow-up of 15.7 months. Among 16 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were 31% and 88%, respectively. Patients with strong HER2 expression (n=8) had a higher ORR and longer OS, whereas those with strong EGFR expression (n=3) had poorer outcomes. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade were neutropenia (52%), diarrhea (27%), aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transaminase elevation (22%), and nausea (19%). No treatment-related deaths or unexpected AEs resulting from treatment cessation were observed in patients with RP2D.
Conclusion
A combination of varlitinib and paclitaxel displayed manageable toxicity and modest antitumor activity in patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing AGC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy.
10.Executive Summary of 2023 International Conference of the Korean Dementia Association (IC-KDA 2023): A Report From the Academic Committee of the Korean Dementia Association
Geon Ha KIM ; Jaeho KIM ; Won-Seok CHOI ; Yun Kyung KIM ; Kun Ho LEE ; Jae-Won JANG ; Jae Gwan KIM ; Hui Jin RYU ; Soh-Jeong YANG ; Hyemin JANG ; Na-Yeon JUNG ; Ko Woon KIM ; Yong JEONG ; So Young MOON ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(2):75-88
The Korean Dementia Association (KDA) has been organizing biennial international academic conferences since 2019, with the International Conference of the KDA (IC-KDA) 2023 held in Busan under the theme ‘Beyond Boundaries: Advancing Global Dementia Solutions.’ The conference comprised 6 scientific sessions, 3 plenary lectures, and 4luncheon symposiums, drawing 804 participants from 35 countries. Notably, a Korea– Taiwan Joint Symposium addressed insights into Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Plenary lectures by renowned scholars explored topics such as microbiome-related AD pathogenesis, social cognition in neurodegenerative diseases, and genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD). On the first day, specific presentations covered subjects like the gut–brain axis and neuroinflammation in dementia, blood-based biomarkers in AD, and updates in AD therapeutics. The second day’s presentations addressed recent issues in clinical neuropsychology, FTD cohort studies, and the pathogenesis of non-AD dementia. The Academic Committee of the KDA compiles lecture summaries to provide comprehensive understanding of the advanced dementia knowledge presented at IC-KDA 2023.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail