1.Molecular and Phenotypic Characterization of Fluid-Derived Patient-Derived Cell and Organoid Models in Advanced Gastric Cancer
Ye Jin MOON ; Woo Sun KWON ; Chan Hee PARK ; Jinsoo JANG ; Juin PARK ; Byeong Gyu YOON ; Han Byeol MUN ; Namju KIM ; Choong-kun LEE ; Hei Cheul JEUNG ; Su-Jin SHIN ; Tae Soo KIM ; Sun Young RHA
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2026;26(2):260-278
Purpose:
Patient-derived cells (PDCs) and patient-derived organoids (PDOs) are complementary preclinical models widely used in translational cancer research. However, their molecular and functional differences have not been systematically characterized. This study established and analyzed paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same gastric cancer ascites to delineate platform-dependent molecular and functional profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Malignant ascites or pleural fluid obtained from 6 patients with advanced gastric cancer were used to establish paired PDC and PDO models. All pairs underwent comprehensive multi-omics profiling, integrating genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data. Phenotypic characterization included morphological, histological, proliferative, and cell cycle analyses. Drug sensitivity assays were performed using 4 chemotherapeutic agents commonly used to treat gastric cancer.
Results:
The 6 paired PDC and PDO models exhibited distinct morphological characteristics.Whole-genome analyses demonstrated high concordance among primary tumors, PDCs, and PDOs, confirming tumor representation across platforms. Multi-omics profiling identified platform-dependent molecular signatures; PDOs were enriched for extracellular matrix remodeling and stemness, whereas PDCs displayed proliferation- and immune-related signatures. Clinically relevant biomarkers, including HER2 and MET alterations, were concordant with primary tumors. Notably, drug responses differed between platforms and patients, indicating platform-dependent and patient-specific chemosensitivity.
Conclusions
Paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same patients preserved core patient-specific tumor characteristics while exhibiting distinct molecular and functional profiles. These findings underscore the culture platform as a critical determinant of experimental outcomes and therapeutic responses. Therefore, careful selection of an appropriate preclinical model is essential to accurately address biological questions and optimize precision oncology strategies.
2.Assessment of Fat Fraction and Muscle Atrophy in the Supraspinatus Muscle:Optimal Sagittal Plane Selection in the Shoulder MRI
Chanyoung RHEE ; Hye Jin YOO ; Tae Kun KIM ; Hee Dong CHAE ; Ja-Young CHOI ; Sung Hwan HONG
Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2026;30(1):29-37
Purpose:
To assess the accuracy of supraspinatus muscle fat fraction and atrophy measured on the Y-view compared with the newly proposed fossa-view sagittal MRI plane.
Materials and Methods:
This study included 84 patients (36 male; mean age, 65.1 ± 10.1 years) who underwent shoulder MRI with extended oblique sagittal T1-weighted and three-dimensional (3D) six-echo Dixon imaging between December 2020 and November 2022. The reference fat fraction was calculated by integrating voxel-wise Dixon values, while supraspinatus muscle volume was quantified using a 3D nnU-Net algorithm and normalized to the scapular volume to derive the standardized muscle index (SMI). Fat fraction and cross-sectional area were quantified on the Y-view and fossaview and compared with the reference values. Subgroup analyses were performed using fatty degeneration and retraction grades.
Results:
Agreement with the reference fat fraction was significantly higher for the fossa-view (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.923) than for the Y-view (ICC, 0.822;p = 0.006). The fossa-view showed smaller deviations and narrower limits of agreement.For SMI, the Y-view (ICC, 0.782) showed higher agreement than the fossa-view (ICC, 0.694), although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.219). Subgroup analyses showed better Y-view performance at lower retraction grades and better fossa-view performance at higher grades, although the differences were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05).
Conclusion
Both planes reliably quantified the fat fraction with greater accuracy in the fossa-view. However, single-plane assessment of muscle atrophy was less reliable, underscoring the need for MRI evaluation of the entire muscle.
3.Pain Lateralization in Cluster Headache and Associated Clinical Factors
Soohyun CHO ; Mi Ji LEE ; Min Kyung CHU ; Jeong Wook PARK ; Heui-Soo MOON ; Pil-Wook CHUNG ; Jong-Hee SOHN ; Byung-Su KIM ; Daeyoung KIM ; Kyungmi OH ; Byung-Kun KIM ; Soo-Jin CHO
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):220-229
Background:
and Purpose The pain lateralization in cluster headache (CH) may be related to the asymmetry in the functions of the brain hemispheres. The right-sided dominance of pain in CH has been found inconsistently across studies, and so we aimed to characterize this and identify the factors influencing pain lateralization during current and previous bouts.
Methods:
This study enrolled 227 patients from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry between October 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the side of pain during current and previous bouts, demographic features, and clinical characteristics, including handedness. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the side of pain.
Results:
The 227 patients with CH included 131 (57.7%) with right-sided pain and 86 (37.9%) with left-sided pain during the current bout (p<0.001). The 189 patients with previous bouts of CH included 86.8% who consistently reported the same side of pain throughout multiple bouts (side-locked pain), with a higher prevalence of pain on the right than the left side (55.0% vs. 31.7%, p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=1.045, p=0.031) and shorter CH attacks (OR=0.992, p=0.017) were associated with left-side-locked pain. However, handedness was not associated with the lateralization of leftside-locked pain.
Conclusions
This study has confirmed the predominance of right-sided pain throughout multiple CH bouts. We found that higher age at diagnosis and shorter CH attacks were associated with left-side-locked pain, suggesting that certain clinical factors are associated with the pain laterality. However, the underlying mechanisms linking these factors to lateralized pain remain unclear and therefore require further investigation.
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.Pain Lateralization in Cluster Headache and Associated Clinical Factors
Soohyun CHO ; Mi Ji LEE ; Min Kyung CHU ; Jeong Wook PARK ; Heui-Soo MOON ; Pil-Wook CHUNG ; Jong-Hee SOHN ; Byung-Su KIM ; Daeyoung KIM ; Kyungmi OH ; Byung-Kun KIM ; Soo-Jin CHO
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):220-229
Background:
and Purpose The pain lateralization in cluster headache (CH) may be related to the asymmetry in the functions of the brain hemispheres. The right-sided dominance of pain in CH has been found inconsistently across studies, and so we aimed to characterize this and identify the factors influencing pain lateralization during current and previous bouts.
Methods:
This study enrolled 227 patients from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry between October 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the side of pain during current and previous bouts, demographic features, and clinical characteristics, including handedness. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the side of pain.
Results:
The 227 patients with CH included 131 (57.7%) with right-sided pain and 86 (37.9%) with left-sided pain during the current bout (p<0.001). The 189 patients with previous bouts of CH included 86.8% who consistently reported the same side of pain throughout multiple bouts (side-locked pain), with a higher prevalence of pain on the right than the left side (55.0% vs. 31.7%, p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=1.045, p=0.031) and shorter CH attacks (OR=0.992, p=0.017) were associated with left-side-locked pain. However, handedness was not associated with the lateralization of leftside-locked pain.
Conclusions
This study has confirmed the predominance of right-sided pain throughout multiple CH bouts. We found that higher age at diagnosis and shorter CH attacks were associated with left-side-locked pain, suggesting that certain clinical factors are associated with the pain laterality. However, the underlying mechanisms linking these factors to lateralized pain remain unclear and therefore require further investigation.
6.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.
7.Pain Lateralization in Cluster Headache and Associated Clinical Factors
Soohyun CHO ; Mi Ji LEE ; Min Kyung CHU ; Jeong Wook PARK ; Heui-Soo MOON ; Pil-Wook CHUNG ; Jong-Hee SOHN ; Byung-Su KIM ; Daeyoung KIM ; Kyungmi OH ; Byung-Kun KIM ; Soo-Jin CHO
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):220-229
Background:
and Purpose The pain lateralization in cluster headache (CH) may be related to the asymmetry in the functions of the brain hemispheres. The right-sided dominance of pain in CH has been found inconsistently across studies, and so we aimed to characterize this and identify the factors influencing pain lateralization during current and previous bouts.
Methods:
This study enrolled 227 patients from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry between October 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the side of pain during current and previous bouts, demographic features, and clinical characteristics, including handedness. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the side of pain.
Results:
The 227 patients with CH included 131 (57.7%) with right-sided pain and 86 (37.9%) with left-sided pain during the current bout (p<0.001). The 189 patients with previous bouts of CH included 86.8% who consistently reported the same side of pain throughout multiple bouts (side-locked pain), with a higher prevalence of pain on the right than the left side (55.0% vs. 31.7%, p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=1.045, p=0.031) and shorter CH attacks (OR=0.992, p=0.017) were associated with left-side-locked pain. However, handedness was not associated with the lateralization of leftside-locked pain.
Conclusions
This study has confirmed the predominance of right-sided pain throughout multiple CH bouts. We found that higher age at diagnosis and shorter CH attacks were associated with left-side-locked pain, suggesting that certain clinical factors are associated with the pain laterality. However, the underlying mechanisms linking these factors to lateralized pain remain unclear and therefore require further investigation.
8.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.
9.Outcomes of Re-Switching Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor after Brolucizumab-Associated Inflammation in Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Young Kun SUH ; Seok Hee LEE ; Min Seok KIM
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology 2025;39(6):493-500
Purpose:
To investigate the anatomical and functional outcomes in cases of re-switching to previous anti?vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents due to intraocular inflammation (IOI) following a switch to brolucizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Methods:
This study included patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who switched to brolucizumab and discontinued brolucizumab treatment due to IOI, with a follow-up duration of at least 6 months before and after brolucizumab treatment period. Changes in best-corrected visual acuity, central macular thickness, central choroidal thickness, and retinal fluid on optical coherence tomography were evaluated.
Results:
A total of 16 eyes from 16 patients were reviewed. Two patients (12.5%) achieved complete fluid resolution before brolucizumab treatment, which increased to 15 (93.8%) during brolucizumab therapy. However, after switching back to other anti-VEGF agents, the proportion of patients with dry macula decreased to 37.5%. There were no statistically significant changes in best-corrected visual acuity, central macular thickness, central choroidal thickness throughout the study period.
Conclusions
In cases where brolucizumab treatment was discontinued due to IOI and switched back to other anti-VEGF agents, the anatomical response was insufficient, indicating the need for alternative treatment options.
10.Experiences of healthcare providers and patients with diabetes mellitus regarding continuous glucose monitoring use in South Korea: a multicenter, cross-sectional survey study
Young-Jin CHOI ; Jung-Hwa LEE ; Kyu-Jeung AHN ; Ho-Yeon CHUNG ; Ji Eun JUN ; You-Cheol HWANG ; Hyuk-Sang KWON ; Young NA ; Jae-Hyeon KIM ; Kang-Hee SIM ; Kun-Ho YOON ; Bok-Rye SONG ; In-Kyung JEONG
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):60-
Background:
Despite the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, limited data exist on their perceived benefits and challenges among patients and healthcare providers. This study explored CGM-related experiences in South Korea.
Methods:
An anonymous online survey was conducted between January and December 2021 at four university hospitals. Respondents included patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), physicians, and DM education nurses. The survey assessed the use of CGM, its benefits, and barriers. Most devices were first-generation CGMs: FreeStyle Libre 1 (Abbott Diabetes Care), Dexcom G6 (Dexcom Inc.), and Medtronic Guardian 3 (Medtronic MiniMed).
Results:
Among 1,010 patients (33.4% with type 1 DM [T1DM], 63.6% with type 2 DM [T2DM], and 3.1% others; mean age, 51.4±14.6 years), 92.7% found CGM helpful. Although 59.6% reported discomfort, 81.9% intended to continue using CGM, indicating that perceived benefits outweighed barriers. The key advantages were glucose monitoring without finger pricks (T1DM, 57.9%; T2DM, 56.2%) and maintenance of target glucose levels. Discomfort was related to discomfort during activities (53.8%), skin problems (45.0%), and pain (43.0%). Healthcare provider recommendations were associated with reduced discomfort (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.60). Physicians (n=29) cited high costs as the main barrier (T1DM, 58.9%; T2DM, 64.8%); only 51.9% and 14.5% prescribed CGM for T1DM and T2DM, respectively. Insulin adjustment and glucose control were the main reasons for prescription, while cost (89.3%) and limited consultation time (67.9%) were barriers. DM educators (n=9) reported heavy workloads, with training and follow-up times averaging 31.7±7.5 minutes and 21.7±9.7 minutes, respectively; 77.8% of DM educators identified frequent patient inquiries as their greatest burden.
Conclusion
CGM provides significant clinical benefits but is limited by discomfort, costs, and educational burden. Sustained adoption requires device improvements, insurance support, and workforce expansion.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail