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.

Sarcopenia is a major geriatric syndrome characterized by progressive loss of muscle mass and strength, resulting in disability and mortality. This narrative review synthesizes international consensus recommendations and Korean evidence to guide context-specific sarcopenia management strategies. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed (January 2000–November 2025) were searched, focusing on randomized trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and large observational studies. Global diagnostic frameworks have evolved from muscle mass-based definitions toward multidimensional models that incorporate muscle strength and physical performance. Exercise and nutrition remain the mainstay treatments, with resistance-based training and adequate protein intake. Currently, pharmacologic options with proven clinical benefit are limited. In Korea, growing evidence supports the effectiveness of community-based sarcopenia interventions, underscoring the need for standardized, integrated delivery models that bridge the fragmented healthcare system and enable sustainable implementation.

Background: s/Aims: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the standard treatment for periampullary tumors, but it is technically challenging. Evidence directly comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic, and hybrid approaches is limited. This study conducts a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open PD (OPD), laparoscopic PD (LPD), robotic PD (RPD), and hybrid PD. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1994 and August 2024.We included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies that evaluated at least two PD approaches. Perioperative outcomes were the primary endpoints, while oncologic safety served as a secondary endpoint. A random-effects NMA was performed, establishing treatment hierarchies through ranking probabilities (PROSPERO ID: CRD420250365864). Results: A total of 78 studies were included (5 randomized and 73 retrospective). RPD was associated with lower blood loss compared to OPD (mean difference [MD], –163.85 mL) and LPD (MD, –84.14 mL). Hospital stays were also shorter for RPD compared to OPD (MD, –2.50 days) and LPD (MD, –1.88 days). In contrast, OPD was the most time-efficient approach compared to LPD (MD, –77.61 minutes) and RPD (MD, –73.30 minutes). Mortality rates, severe complications, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, and reoperation rates were comparable across all surgical approaches. In terms of oncologic safety, lymph node yield and R0 resection rates were similar for all modalities. Conclusions While OPD is the most time-efficient approach, RPD provides significant advantages in reducing intraoperative blood loss and shortening hospital stays compared to both LPD and OPD.

Purpose: This 6-year post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted in South Korea to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of eribulin in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. Materials and Methods: During the study period (17 August 2012 to 16 August 2018), case-report files (CRFs) of patients receiving eribulin were collected. The main study endpoint was to assess the safety of eribulin. Evaluation of the effectiveness of eribulin was an exploratory endpoint. Patients were followed for 1 year after eribulin initiation. Results: CRFs were collected from 64 investigators at 64 sites for 1,079 patients. The safety analysis set (SAS) included 1,001 eribulin recipients; effectiveness was assessed in 244 patients. In the SAS, patients were predominantly female (99.6%), with a median age of 53.0 years, and diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (92.0%). Eribulin was administered as a median 4th line chemotherapy. A total of 2,124 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 661 patients (66.0%). Neutropenia was the most common TEAE (32.5% of patients), occurring at a median of 9-11 days from initial eribulin administration. Overall response and disease control rates were 31.7% and 95.6%, respectively, and the median duration of eribulin use (time to treatment failure) was 3.0 months. Conclusion This large real-world PMS analysis in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer demonstrated the effectiveness of eribulin and found no new safety concerns relative to safety information from prior clinical and real-world studies, and approvals in South Korea and other countries.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Helicobacter pylori causes gastric cancer and peptic ulcers, and eradication therapy can reduce the incidence of cancer in high-risk groups. In Korea, discrepancies between the reimbursement criteria and clinical guidelines create clinical challenges. This study investigated the perceptions and practices of experts regarding H. pylori testing during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and any subsequent eradication therapy. An anonymous 8-question survey was conducted among 51 experts attending the 2024 Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research Summer Workshop. Only 2% of the experts tested all patients. Testing was performed in 54% of patients with a family history of gastric cancer, 32% of those with atrophic gastritis, 42% of those with dyspeptic symptoms, and 62% of those with iron-deficiency anemia. Among patients with suspected infections (based on endoscopic findings) and eligible for selective reimbursement, 82% underwent H. pylori testing. Age did not influence testing decisions for 60% of the experts, and 57% considered factors other than age when deciding on eradication therapy. The practices of the experts varied depending on the patient’s clinical condition and economic burden. Aligning clinical guidelines with the reimbursement criteria is necessary to reduce confusion and ensure appropriate patient care.

Helicobacter pylori causes gastric cancer and peptic ulcers, and eradication therapy can reduce the incidence of cancer in high-risk groups. In Korea, discrepancies between the reimbursement criteria and clinical guidelines create clinical challenges. This study investigated the perceptions and practices of experts regarding H. pylori testing during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and any subsequent eradication therapy. An anonymous 8-question survey was conducted among 51 experts attending the 2024 Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research Summer Workshop. Only 2% of the experts tested all patients. Testing was performed in 54% of patients with a family history of gastric cancer, 32% of those with atrophic gastritis, 42% of those with dyspeptic symptoms, and 62% of those with iron-deficiency anemia. Among patients with suspected infections (based on endoscopic findings) and eligible for selective reimbursement, 82% underwent H. pylori testing. Age did not influence testing decisions for 60% of the experts, and 57% considered factors other than age when deciding on eradication therapy. The practices of the experts varied depending on the patient’s clinical condition and economic burden. Aligning clinical guidelines with the reimbursement criteria is necessary to reduce confusion and ensure appropriate patient care.