1.Exploring Oncologists’ Perspectives on the Early Integration of Specialty Palliative Care in Korea: Challenges, Needs, and Clinical Implications
Shin Hye YOO ; Yu Jung KIM ; Ye Sul JEUNG ; Jung Sun KIM ; Kwonoh PARK ; Eun Mi NAM ; Si Won LEE ; Jun Ho JI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Joon Young HUR ; Song Ee PARK ; Jung Lim LEE ; Su-Jin KOH
Cancer Research and Treatment 2026;58(1):339-348
Purpose:
This study aimed to explore the practices, perceptions, and barriers related to specialty palliative care (SPC) referrals among oncologists in Korea, highlighting the clinical implications of early integration.
Materials and Methods:
A cross-sectional online survey targeting board-certified hemato-oncology specialists was conducted between August 1-25, 2024. The survey assessed referral practices, attitudes toward early SPC integration, referral criteria, barriers, and institutional characteristics.
Results:
A total of 227 oncologists participated (response rate, 36.7%). Among them, 68.7% reported frequent SPC referrals, with higher referral rates observed among younger physicians, those in tertiary hospitals, and institutions with in-house SPC teams (p < 0.001). Although 74.9% supported early SPC integration, referrals were often inconsistently timed, frequently occurring after disease progression or at the discontinuation of chemotherapy. For time-based referrals, the most commonly endorsed triggers were disease progression despite palliative second-line treatment and a prognosis of expected mortality within 6-12 months. Need-based referral triggers such as patient or family requests (96.5%), psychological distress (89.9%), or uncontrolled symptoms (83.3%), were also widely endorsed. The major barriers to early SPC integration included patient and family resistance (70.0%) and limited availability of SPC teams (34.4%).
Conclusion
This study emphasizes the importance of systematic efforts to promote timely SPC integration in Korea, including education to raise patient awareness, improved referral systems, and enhanced infrastructure. The positive attitudes toward early SPC among oncologists reflect a growing recognition of its value, highlighting the need for strategies that align with international standards.
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.Impact of Patient Sex on Adverse Events and Unscheduled Utilization of Medical Services in Cancer Patients Undergoing Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
Songji CHOI ; Seyoung SEO ; Ju Hyun LEE ; Koung Jin SUH ; Ji-Won KIM ; Jin Won KIM ; Se Hyun KIM ; Yu Jung KIM ; Keun-Wook LEE ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Tae Won KIM ; Yong Sang HONG ; Sun Young KIM ; Jeong Eun KIM ; Sang-We KIM ; Dae Ho LEE ; Jae Cheol LEE ; Chang-Min CHOI ; Shinkyo YOON ; Su-Jin KOH ; Young Joo MIN ; Yongchel AHN ; Hwa Jung KIM ; Jin Ho BAEK ; Sook Ryun PARK ; Jee Hyun KIM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2024;56(2):404-413
Purpose:
The female sex is reported to have a higher risk of adverse events (AEs) from cytotoxic chemotherapy. Few studies examined the sex differences in AEs and their impact on the use of medical services during adjuvant chemotherapy. This sub-study aimed to compare the incidence of any grade and grade ≥ 3 AEs, healthcare utilization, chemotherapy completion rate, and dose intensity according to sex.
Materials and Methods:
This is a sub-study of a multicenter cohort conducted in Korea that evaluated the impact of healthcare reimbursement on AE evaluation in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy between September 2013 and December 2016 at four hospitals in Korea.
Results:
A total of 1,170 patients with colorectal, gastric, or non–small cell lung cancer were included in the study. Female patients were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and experienced less postoperative weight loss of > 10%. Females had significantly higher rates of any grade AEs including nausea, abdominal pain, stomatitis, vomiting, and neutropenia, and experienced more grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting. The dose intensity of chemotherapy was significantly lower in females, and they also experienced more frequent dose reduction after the first cycle. Moreover, female patients receiving platinum-containing regimens had significantly higher rates of unscheduled outpatient visits.
Conclusion
Our study found that females experienced a higher incidence of multiple any-grade AEs and severe neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting, across various cancer types, leading to more frequent dose reductions. Physicians should be aware of sex differences in AEs for chemotherapy decisions.
6.Incidence and Predictors of Kummell’s Disease in Patients with Benign Vertebral Compression Fractures
Jeong-Ju HONG ; Cheolsu JWA ; Jae Hoon KIM ; Hee In KANG ; In-Suk BAE ; Hyungjoo KWON
The Nerve 2024;10(1):31-38
Objective:
Kummell's disease (KD) is a form of delayed vertebral compression fracture. However, its incidence and predictors remain unclear. We investigated the incidence rate and predictors of KD in patients with benign vertebral compression fractures.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed 437 consecutive patients with benign vertebral compression fractures admitted to XXX between 2015 and 2018. The inclusion criterion was patients with newly diagnosed KD at ≥20 years of age. The control subjects had acute benign vertebral compression fractures. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate the predictors of KD.
Results:
In total, 39 patients (8.9%) were newly diagnosed with KD, with an average age of 77.3 years. In older patients (≥70 years), the incidence was 12.8%. The incidence rate was highest in patients in their 70s. Most cases of KD (69.2%) occurred in the thoracolumbar region. Multivariate regression analysis showed that age ≥70 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–9.97; p=0.041) and a history of ischemic stroke (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.26–6.74; p=0.012) were independently associated with KD.
Conclusion
KD appears to be relatively common, especially in older people (≥70 years). Older age and a history of ischemic stroke may be independent predictors of KD. This study also indicated that ischemic factors may play a more important role than mechanical factors in the development of KD from vertebral compression fractures.
7.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(1):3-106
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.
8.Aneurysmectomy and graft interposition for giant thrombosed proximal internal carotid artery aneurysm: Technical details
Ki Dong BAEK ; Jae Hoon KIM ; Hee In KANG ; Cheol Su JWA ; In-Suk BAE ; Sung Ho SHIN
Journal of Cerebrovascular and Endovascular Neurosurgery 2023;25(2):203-207
A giant thrombosed extracranial internal carotid artery aneurysm (ECCA) is extremely rare and its treatment is challenging. Despite the advance of endovascular technique, open surgery is still considered a first-line treatment in giant thrombosed ECCA. We describe a case of giant thrombosed ECCA which was successfully treated by aneurysmectomy and graft interposition with the technical details.
9.Erratum: Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidencebased, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(2):365-373
10.The Prognosis and the Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Node-Positive Bladder Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery
Hyehyun JEONG ; Kye Jin PARK ; Yongjune LEE ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Shinkyo YOON ; Bumsik HONG ; Jae Lyun LEE
Cancer Research and Treatment 2022;54(1):226-233
Purpose:
This study aims to evaluate the prognosis of pathologically node-positive bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients, and the value of preoperative clinical evaluation for lymph node metastases.
Materials and Methods:
Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by partial/radical cystectomy and had pathologically confirmed lymph node metastases between January 2007 and December 2019 were identified and analyzed.
Results:
A total of 53 patients were included in the study. The median age was 61 years (range, 34 to 81 years) with males comprising 86.8%. Among the 52 patients with post-neoadjuvant/pre-operative computed tomography results, only 33 patients (63.5%) were considered positive for lymph node metastasis. Sixteen patients (30.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC group), and 37 patients did not (no AC group). With the median follow-up duration of 67.7 months, the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the median overall survival (OS) was 8.5 months and 16.2 months, respectively. The 2-year RFS and OS rates were 23.3% and 34.6%, respectively. RFS and OS did not differ between the AC group and no AC group (median RFS, 8.8 months vs. 6.8 months, p=0.772; median OS, 16.1 months vs. 16.3 months, p=0.479). Thirty-eight patients (71.7%) experienced recurrence. Distant metastases were the dominant pattern of failure in both the AC group (91.7%) and no AC group (76.9%).
Conclusion
Patients with lymph node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery showed high recurrence rates with limited survival outcomes. Little benefit was observed with the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail