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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background: Denosumab (DMB) is a bone antiresorptive agent used to treat osteoporosis or metastatic cancer of the bones. However, denosumab-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw (DRONJ) has become a common complication in cancer patients. The prevalence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in cancer patients is estimated to be similar for both bisphosphonate-related cases (1.1 to 1.4%) and denosumab-related cases (0.8 to 2%), with the addition of adjunctive therapy with anti-angiogenic agents reportedly increasing its prevalence to 3%. (Spec Care Dentist 36(4):231–236, 2016). The aim of this study is to report on DRONJ in cancer patients treated with DMB (Xgeva ® , 120mg).Case presentation In this study, we identified four cases of ONJ among 74 patients receiving DMB therapy for meta‑ static cancer. Of the four patients, three had prostate cancer and one had breast cancer. Preceding tooth extraction within 2 months of the last DMB injection was found to be a risk factor for DRONJ. Pathological examination revealed that three patients had acute and chronic inflammation, including actinomycosis colonies. Among the four patients with DRONJ referred to us, three were successfully treated without complications and had no recurrence following surgical treatment, while one did not follow up. After healing, one patient experienced a recurrence at a different site.Sequestrectomy in conjunction with antibiotic therapy and cessation of DMB use proved to be effective in managing the condition, and the ONJ site healed after an average 5-month follow-up period. Conclusion Conservative surgery, along with antibiotic therapy and discontinuation of DMB, was found to be effec‑ tive in managing the condition. Additional studies are needed to investigate the contribution of steroids and antican‑ cer drugs to jaw bone necrosis, the prevalence of multicenter cases, and whether there is any drug interaction with DMB.

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.

The abscess is a common complication of Crohn’s disease (CD), with the perianal form more frequent than gluteal or presacral which is relatively rare. There are few case reports of gluteal abscess combined with presacral abscess caused by CD and the treatment has not been established. A 21-year-old male was admitted with right buttock and lower back pain with a duration of 3 months. He had a history of CD in the small intestine diagnosed 10 months previously. He had poor compliance and had not returned for follow-up care during the previous 6 months. Abdominopelvic CT indicated newly developed multiple abscess pockets in right gluteal region, including piriformis muscle and presacral space. Additionally, fistula tracts between small bowel loops and presacral space were observed. Patient’s CD was moderate activity (273.12 on the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI]). Treatment was started with piperacillin/tazobactam antibiotic but patient developed a fever and abscess extent was aggravated. Therefore, surgical incision and drainage was performed and 4 Penrose drains were inserted. Patient’s pain and fever were resolved following surgery. Infliximab was then administered for the remaining fistulas. After the induction regimen, multiple fistula tracts improved and patient went into remission (CDAI was -0.12).