Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients. Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF). Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of early pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the non-PGT-A groups. Conclusion PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.