This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Purpose: Optimal treatment for stage IIIA/N2 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC completely resected after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT). Materials and Methods: In this open-label, single-center, single-arm phase 2 trial, patients with stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC received adjuvant pembrolizumab for up to 2 years after complete resection following neoadjuvant CCRT. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. As an exploratory biomarker analysis, we evaluated the proliferative response of blood CD39+PD-1+CD8+ T cells using fold changes in the percentage of proliferating Ki-67+ cells from days 1 to 7 of cycle 1 (Ki-67D7/D1). Results: Between October 2017 and October 2018, 37 patients were enrolled. Twelve (32%) and three (8%) patients harbored EGFR and ALK alterations, respectively. Of 34 patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 assessment, 21 (62%), nine (26%), and four (12%) had a tumor proportion score of < 1%, 1%-50%, and ≥ 50%, respectively. The median follow-up was 71 months. The median DFS was 22.4 months in the overall population, with a 5-year DFS rate of 29%. The OS rate was 86% at 2 years and 76% at 5 years. Patients with tumor recurrence within 6 months had a significantly lower Ki-67D7/D1 among CD39+PD-1+CD8+ T cells than those without (p=0.036). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion Adjuvant pembrolizumab may offer durable disease control in a subset of stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC patients after neoadjuvant CCRT and surgery.