Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Informed consent is a fundamental aspect of surgical care, designed to reinforce patient autonomy, promote shared decision-making, and potentially mitigate legal conflicts by ensuring the provision of comprehensive and consistent information in clinical practice. The Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) previously published detailed informed consent documents for cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer surgery. However, standardized consent forms remain relatively lacking for laparoscopic-robotic hysterectomy performed for non-malignant indications, as well as for vulvar cancer surgery. Hence, the KSGO subcommittee collected, reviewed, and discussed consent forms from domestic medical institutions and subsequently developed informed consent for laparoscopic-robotic hysterectomy and vulvar cancer surgery, aiming to build patient trust and understanding.

Purpose: Esophagojejunostomy leakage (EJL) remains one of the most critical complications following total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the evolving therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes of EJL using data from a large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Among 6,577 patients who underwent total gastrectomy or proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction at nine institutions from 2003 to 2024, 196 (3.0%) developed EJL. Of these, 162 patients with comprehensive clinical data were included in the final analysis. The study examined treatment modalities, changes in management over time, patient characteristics, surgical variables, and clinical outcomes. Four groups were defined according to treatment approach: conservative, endoscopic, reoperation, and multimodal (combined) therapy. Results: Endoscopic therapy was first introduced in 2011 and has progressively supplanted reoperation, now comprising 32.5% of cases. The average time to EJL diagnosis was 8.4 days after surgery. Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.1% (10/162). When conservative management was excluded, endoscopic treatment demonstrated the highest rate of therapeutic success (94.3%, p = 0.004). Both the duration until diet resumption and length of hospital stay were notably reduced in the endoscopic and conservative groups compared with reoperation and multimodal therapy (p < 0.001). Moreover, although the highest post-leakage hospitalization costs were observed with multimodal treatment (p < 0.001), overall hospitalization expenses were significantly lower for patients managed conservatively or with endoscopic intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion Over the past two decades, management of EJL has shifted toward endoscopic approaches. Endoscopic therapies yield superior clinical outcomes and should be considered a primary option for appropriate candidates.

Background: As the prevalence of hypertension increases with age and the proportion of the older population is also on the rise, research on the characteristics of older hypertensive patients and the importance of frailty is necessary. This study aimed to identify clinical characteristics of older hypertension in Korea and to investigate these characteristics based on frailty status. Methods: The HOW to Optimize eLDerly systolic BP (HOWOLD-BP) is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial that aims to compare intensive (target systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≤ 130 mmHg) with standard (target SBP ≤ 140 mmHg) treatment to reduce cardiovascular events in older hypertensive Korean patients aged ≥ 65 years. Data were analyzed through a screening assessment of 2,085 patients recruited from 11 university hospitals. Demographic, functional (physical and cognitive), medical history, laboratory data, quality of life, and medication history of antihypertensive drugs were assessed. Results: The mean age was 73.2 years (standard deviation ± 5.60), and 48.0% (n = 1,001) were male. Prevalent conditions included dyslipidemia (66.5%), obesity (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m 2 , 53.6%), and diabetes (28.9%). Dizziness and orthostatic hypotension were self-reported by 1.6% (n = 33) and 1.2% (n = 24), respectively. The majority of patients were on two antihypertensive drugs (48.4%), while 27.5% (n = 574) and 20.8% (n = 433) were on 1 and 3 antihypertensive medications, respectively. Frail to pre-frail patients were older and also tended to have dependent instrumental activities of daily living, slower gait speed, weaker grip strength, lower quality of life, and lower cognitive function. The frail to pre-frail group reported more dizziness (2.6% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001) and had concerning clinical factors, including lower glomerular filtration rate, more comorbidities such as diabetes, stroke, and a history of admission. Frail to pre-frail older hypertensive patients used slightly more antihypertensive medications than robust older hypertensive patients (1.95 vs. 2.06, P = 0.003). Pre-frail to frail patients often chose beta-blockers as a third medication over diuretics. Conclusion This study described the general clinical characteristics of older hypertensive patients in Korea. Frail hypertensive patients face challenges in achieving positive clinical outcomes because of multifactorial causes: they are older, have more morbidities, decreased function, lower quality of life and cognitive function, and take more antihypertensive medications. Therefore, it is essential to comprehensively evaluate and monitor diseaserelated or drug-related adverse events more frequently during regular check-ups, which is necessary for pre-frail to frail older patients with hypertension.

Background: Chronic cough is a common symptom encountered by healthcare practitioners.The global prevalence of chronic cough is 9.6%, with a female predominance. The aim of our study is to reveal the sex differences in prevalence and severity of chronic cough in South Korea, stratified by age and etiology. Methods: This study included adult patients with chronic cough who were recruited from 19 respiratory centers in South Korea. Patients completed the cough numeric rating scale (NRS) and COugh Assessment Test (COAT) questionnaire to assess the severity and multidimensional impact of cough. Results: Among the 625 patients, 419 (67.0%) were females, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:2.03. The mean age was 49.4 years, and the median duration of cough was 12 weeks. The mean NRS and COAT scores were 5.5 ± 1.8 and 9.5 ± 3.6, respectively. Female patients were older (45.3 ± 15.4 vs. 51.6 ± 15.2, P < 0.001) and more likely to have asthma/cough variant asthma (CVA) (26.7% vs. 40.8%, P = 0.001) than male patients. There was no difference in the duration or severity of cough between sexes, regardless of the cause. The male-tofemale ratio was lower for upper airway cough syndrome (UACS), asthma/CVA, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but not for eosinophilic bronchitis (EB) or unexplained cough. The mean age of female patients was higher in UACS and asthma/CVA, but not in EB, GERD, or unexplained cough. The majority (24.2%) fell within the age category of 50s. The proportion of females with cough increased with age, with a significant rise in the 50s, 60s, and 70–89 age groups. The severity of cough decreased in the 50s, 60s, and 70–89 age groups, with no significant sex differences within the same age group. Conclusion The sex disparities in prevalence and severity of cough varied significantly depending on the age category and etiology. Understanding the specific sex-based difference could enhance comprehension of cough-related pathophysiology and treatment strategies.

Background: Bulky or multiple lymph node (LN) metastases are associated with poor prognosis in cervical cancer, and the size or number of LN metastases is not yet reflected in the staging system and therapeutic strategy. Although the therapeutic effects of surgical resection of bulky LNs before standard treatment have been reported in several retrospective studies, wellplanned randomized clinical studies are lacking. Therefore, the aim of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group (KGOG) 1047/DEBULK trial is to investigate whether the debulking surgery of bulky or multiple LNs prior to concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) improves the survival rate of patients with cervical cancer IIICr diagnosed by imaging tests. Methods The KGOG 1047/DEBULK trial is a phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving patients with bulky or multiple LN metastases in cervical cancer IIICr. This study will include patients with a short-axis diameter of a pelvic or para-aortic LN ≥2 cm or ≥3 LNs with a short-axis diameter ≥1 cm and for whom CCRT is planned. The treatment arms will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either receive CCRT (control arm) or undergo surgical debulking of bulky or multiple LNs before CCRT (experimental arm). CCRT consists of extended-field external beam radiotherapy/pelvic radiotherapy, brachytherapy and LN boost, and weekly chemotherapy with cisplatin (40 mg/m 2 ), 4–6 times administered intravenously.The primary endpoint will be 3-year progression-free survival rate. The secondary endpoints will be 3-year overall survival rate, treatment-related complications, and accuracy of radiological diagnosis of bulky or multiple LNs.