1.The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0
Hyo Seon RYU ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Dong Hyun KANG ; Yoo-Kang KWAK ; Han Deok KWAK ; Yoon-Hye KWON ; Dalyon KIM ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Ji Hun KIM ; Jin Won KIM ; Tae Hyung KIM ; Hae Young KIM ; Soo Min NAM ; Gyoung Tae NOH ; Jun Woo BONG ; Nak Song SUNG ; Seon Hui SHIN ; Kil-Yong LEE ; Sung Chul LEE ; Sea-Won LEE ; Jung Won LEE ; Jong Min LEE ; Myung Hoon IHN ; Joo Han LIM ; Woong Bae JI ; Dae Hee PYO ; Young Ki HONG ; Jung-Myun KWAK ;
Annals of Coloproctology 2026;42(1):4-33
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.
2.Neuroblastoma: A 2020 Survey Conducted by the Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Hee-Beom YANG ; Soo Min AHN ; Min Jeng CHO ; Yong-Hoon CHO ; Soo Jin Na CHOI ; Yoon Mi CHOI ; Jae Hee CHUNG ; Seok Joo HAN ; In Geol HO ; Jeong HONG ; Kyong IHN ; Yeon Jun JEONG ; Eunyoung JUNG ; Dae Youn KIM ; Hae-Young KIM ; Ki Hoon KIM ; Seong Chul KIM ; Soo-Hong KIM ; Eun-Jung KOO ; Hyun Hee KWON ; Yong Jae KWON ; Nam-Hyuk LEE ; Ju Yeon LEE ; Sanghoon LEE ; Jung-Man NAMGOONG ; Chaeyoun OH ; Jung-Tak OH ; Jin Young PARK ; Junbeom PARK ; Jeong-Meen SEO ; Jae Ho SHIN ; Hyun Beak SHIN ; Joohyun SIM ; Jiyoung SUL ; Joon Kee YOUN ; Hyun-Young KIM
Advances in Pediatric Surgery 2025;31(2):66-76
Purpose:
To report a nationwide survey on neuroblastoma conducted by the Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons (KAPS) in 2020.
Methods:
The clinical data of pediatric patients diagnosed with and treated for neuroblastoma from 2005 to 2019 in 19 hospitals of KAPS members were collected. Survival and prognostic factor analyses were performed using the log rank test and Cox proportional hazard analysis. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.
Results:
A total of 669 patients with neuroblastoma were registered for the study. The results were presented and discussed at the 36th annual meeting of the KAPS, which was held in Seoul on August 21, 2020.
Conclusion
This study provides information on patient demographics, prognostic outcomes, and comprehensive treatment outcomes for neuroblastoma. The study is expected to be an important reference for improving pediatric surgeons’ understanding and treatment of neuroblastoma.
3.A Comparative Study of Three National Surveys on Biliary Atresia by the Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Yeon Jun JEONG ; Dayoung KO ; Hyunhee KWON ; Ki Hoon KIM ; Dae Yeon KIM ; Soo-Hong KIM ; Wontae KIM ; Hae-Young KIM ; Hyun Young KIM ; Seong Chul KIM ; Younghyun NA ; Jung-Man NAMGOONG ; So Hyun NAM ; Junbeom PARK ; Jinyoung PARK ; Tae-Jun PARK ; Jeong-Meen SEO ; Ji-Young SUL ; Joonhyuk SON ; Hyun Beak SHIN ; Joohyun SIM ; Soo Min AHN ; Hee Beom YANG ; Jung-Tak OH ; Chaeyoun OH ; Joong Kee YOUN ; Sanghoon LEE ; Ju Yeon LEE ; Kyong IHN ; Hye Kyung CHANG ; Eunyoung JUNG ; Jae Hee CHUNG ; Yu Jeong CHO ; Yun Mee CHOE ; Soo Jin Na CHOI ; Seok Joo HAN ; In Geol HO ; Ji-Won HAN
Advances in Pediatric Surgery 2025;31(2):47-58
Purpose:
Biliary atresia (BA) is a rare but progressive cholangiopathy and the leading cause of pediatric liver transplantation worldwide. The Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons (KAPS) has conducted three national surveys (2001, 2011, and 2023) to assess long-term trends in the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of BA. This study provides a comparative analysis of the 2nd and 3rd national surveys, with reference to selected findings from the 1st survey.
Methods:
This study included 453 patients from the 3rd national survey (2011–2021) and 435 patients from the 2nd survey (2001–2010), all of whom underwent Kasai portoenterostomy. Data were collected via electronic case report forms from pediatric surgical centers nationwide. Comparisons were made regarding demographics, clinical features, diagnostic patterns, operative details, follow-up outcomes, and survival. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to evaluate long-term survival.
Results:
The mean number of BA patients per year remained stable between surveys (43.5 in the 2nd, 41.18 in the 3rd), though centralization of care increased, with 61.5% of cases managed by two major institutions in the 3rd survey. The median age at surgery decreased, and the use of preoperative imaging (especially magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) increased. The 10-year native liver survival rate declined from 59.8% to 53.7%, while overall 10-year survival improved slightly (92.9% to 93.2%). Postoperative complications, such as cholangitis and liver failure, persisted but were better categorized. The 3rd survey also reported improved mortality (4.9%) and reduced follow-up loss (11.5%) compared to the 2nd survey.
Conclusion
While overall survival after Kasai operation has remained high and even improved, native liver survival has slightly declined. The findings reflect earlier diagnosis, more consistent diagnostic imaging, and increasing centralization of care. These trends underscore the importance of long-term nationwide data collection in guiding future strategies for BA management in Korea.
4.Limited survival benefit of preoperative transarterial chemoembolization in huge hepatocellular carcinoma due to the prognostic impact of satellite nodules: a retrospective cohort study
Byeong-Gon NA ; Shin HWANG ; Chul-Soo AHN ; Ki-Hun KIM ; Deok-Bog MOON ; Tae-Yong HA ; Gi-Won SONG ; Dong-Hwan JUNG ; Gil-Chun PARK ; Sang Hoon KIM ; Sung-Gyu LEE
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;109(3):194-206
Purpose:
Huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses significant treatment and prognosis challenges. This study aimed to determine whether preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for huge HCC is necessary.
Methods:
This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated 435 patients with huge HCC who underwent upfront hepatectomy or hepatectomy after preoperative TACE from January 2009 to December 2018. TACE’s impact on survival and prognostic factors, including microvascular invasion (MVI) and satellite nodules (SNs), was analyzed.
Results:
The preoperative TACE group (n = 33) had a lower incidence of MVI (P = 0.009) and higher postoperative morbidity (P = 0.001), particularly pleural effusion (P = 0.004) and Clavien-Dindo class III–IV complications (P = 0.033), compared with the upfront hepatectomy group (n = 402). Short-term mortality (P = 0.828) and recurrence within 6 months (P = 0.654) were comparable between groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival curves showed no significant between-group differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.172) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.450). Local regional therapy for intrahepatic recurrences and surgical resection for extrahepatic recurrences were associated with better OS. MVI, SN, and hepatic vein tumor thrombosis were identified as significant risk factors for poorer RFS and OS. In patients without SN, preoperative TACE improved RFS (P = 0.039) but not OS.
Conclusion
Preoperative TACE for huge HCC was associated with reduced MVI but did not improve RFS and OS. Survival outcomes were more significantly influenced by SN, suggesting that upfront hepatectomy without TACE should be prioritized.
5.Evidence‑based Korean guidelines for the clinical management of multiple myeloma: addressing 12 key clinical questions
Sung‑Hoon JUNG ; Youngil KOH ; Min Kyoung KIM ; Jin Seok KIM ; Joon Ho MOON ; Chang‑Ki MIN ; Dok Hyun YOON ; Sung‑Soo YOON ; Je‑Jung LEE ; Chae Moon HONG ; Ka‑Won KANG ; Jihyun KWON ; Kyoung Ha KIM ; Dae Sik KIM ; Sung Yong KIM ; Sung‑Hyun KIM ; Yu Ri KIM ; Young Rok DO ; Yeung‑Chul MUN ; Sung‑Soo PARK ; Young Hoon PARK ; Ho Jin SHIN ; Hyeon‑Seok EOM ; Sang Eun YOON ; Sang Mee HWANG ; Won Sik LEE ; Myung‑won LEE ; Jun Ho YI ; Ji Yun LEE ; Ji Hyun LEE ; Ho Sup LEE ; Sung‑Nam LIM ; Jihyang LIM ; Ho‑Young YHIM ; Yoon Hwan CHANG ; Jae‑Cheol JO ; Jinhyun CHO ; Hyungwoo CHO ; Yoon Seok CHOI ; Hee jeong CHO ; Ari AHN ; Jong Han CHOI ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Kihyun KIM
Blood Research 2025;60():9-
Multiple myeloma (MM), a hematological malignancy, is characterized by malignant plasma cell proliferation in the bone marrow. Recent treatment advances have significantly improved patient outcomes associated with MM.In this study, we aimed to develop comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treat‑ ment of MM. We identified 12 key clinical questions essential for MM management, guiding the extensive literature review and meta-analysis of the study. Our guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations by integrating patient preferences with survey data. These recommendations include current and emerging diagnostic tools, thera‑ peutic agents, and treatment strategies. By prioritizing a patient-centered approach and rigorous data analysis, these guidelines were developed to enhance MM management, both in Korea and globally.
6.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
7.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
8.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
9.Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults
Jung-Joon CHA ; Soon Jun HONG ; Subin LIM ; Ju Hyeon KIM ; Hyung Joon JOO ; Jae Hyoung PARK ; Cheol Woong YU ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jang Young KIM ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jeong-Hun SHIN ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jong-Young LEE ; Young-Hyo LIM ; Sung Ha PARK ; Eun Joo CHO ; Hasung KIM ; Jungkuk LEE ; Ki-Chul SUNG ;
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(9):534-544
Background and Objectives:
Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.
Methods:
Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.
Results:
The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.
Conclusions
Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
10.Clinical significance and outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure: a retrospective cohort study based on 15-year single-center experience
Geun-hyeok YANG ; Young-In YOON ; Shin HWANG ; Ki-Hun KIM ; Chul-Soo AHN ; Deok-Bog MOON ; Tae-Yong HA ; Gi-Won SONG ; Dong-Hwan JUNG ; Gil-Chun PARK ; Sung-Gyu LEE
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2024;107(3):167-177
Purpose:
This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020.
Results:
The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality.
Conclusion
LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail