Background/Aims: The newly derived simplified magnetic resonance index of activity (MARIAs) has not been verified in comparison to balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) for patients with small bowel Crohn’s disease (CD). We studied the correlation of MARIAs with simple endoscopic scores for CD (SES-CD) of the ileum based on magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and BAE in patients with small bowel CD. Methods: Fifty patients with small bowel CD who underwent BAE and MRE concurrently within 3 months from September 2020 to June 2021 were enrolled in the study. The primary outcome was the correlation between the active score of ileal SES-CD (ileal SES-CDa)/ileal SES-CD and MARIAs based on BAE and MRE. The cutoff value for MARIAs identifying endoscopically active/ severe disease, defined as ileal SES-CDa/ileal SES-CD of 5/7 or more, was analyzed. Results: Ileal SES-CDa/ileal SES-CD and MARIAs showed strong associations (R=0.76, p<0.001; R=0.78, p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MA-RIAs for ileal SES-CDa ≥5 and ileal SES-CD ≥7 was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.97) and 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.97). The cutoff value of MARIAs for detecting active/ severe disease was 3. A MARIAs index value of ≥3 identified ileal SES-CDa ≥5 with a sensitiv-ity of 85% and specificity of 87% and detected ileal SES-CD ≥7 with a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 86%. Conclusions This study validated the applicability of MARIAs compared to BAE-based ileal SES-CDa/SES-CD.

Objective: In Korea, radiology has been positioned towards the early adoption of artificial intelligence-based software as medical devices (AI-SaMDs); however, little is known about the current usage, implementation, and future needs of AI-SaMDs.We surveyed the current trends and expectations for AI-SaMDs among members of the Korean Society of Radiology (KSR). Materials and Methods: An anonymous and voluntary online survey was open to all KSR members between April 17 and May 15, 2023. The survey was focused on the experiences of using AI-SaMDs, patterns of usage, levels of satisfaction, and expectations regarding the use of AI-SaMDs, including the roles of the industry, government, and KSR regarding the clinical use of AI-SaMDs. Results: Among the 370 respondents (response rate: 7.7% [370/4792]; 340 board-certified radiologists; 210 from academic institutions), 60.3% (223/370) had experience using AI-SaMDs. The two most common use-case of AI-SaMDs among the respondents were lesion detection (82.1%, 183/223), lesion diagnosis/classification (55.2%, 123/223), with the target imaging modalities being plain radiography (62.3%, 139/223), CT (42.6%, 95/223), mammography (29.1%, 65/223), and MRI (28.7%, 64/223). Most users were satisfied with AI-SaMDs (67.6% [115/170, for improvement of patient management] to 85.1% [189/222, for performance]). Regarding the expansion of clinical applications, most respondents expressed a preference for AI-SaMDs to assist in detection/diagnosis (77.0%, 285/370) and to perform automated measurement/quantification (63.5%, 235/370). Most respondents indicated that future development of AI-SaMDs should focus on improving practice efficiency (81.9%, 303/370) and quality (71.4%, 264/370). Overall, 91.9% of the respondents (340/370) agreed that there is a need for education or guidelines driven by the KSR regarding the use of AI-SaMDs. Conclusion The penetration rate of AI-SaMDs in clinical practice and the corresponding satisfaction levels were high among members of the KSR. Most AI-SaMDs have been used for lesion detection, diagnosis, and classification. Most respondents requested KSR-driven education or guidelines on the use of AI-SaMDs.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Objective: To investigate the association among the electrode placement method, electrode type, and local tumor progression (LTP) following percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and to assess the risk factors for LTP. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we enrolled 211 patients, including 150 males and 61 females, who had undergone ultrasound-guided RFA for a single HCC < 3 cm. Patients were divided into four combination groups of the electrode type and placement method: 1) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled tip (ICT), 2) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled wet tip (ICWT), 3) no-touch with ICT, and 4) no-touch with ICWT. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for LTP. The major RFA-related complications were assessed. Results: Overall, 83, 34, 80, and 14 patients were included in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively. The cumulative LTP rates differed significantly among the four groups. Compared to tumor puncturing with ICT, tumor puncturing with ICWT was associated with a lower LTP risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0–0.88, P = 0.034). However, the cumulative LTP rate did not differ significantly between tumorpuncturing with ICT and no-touch RFA with ICT (aHR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.03–1.62, P = 0.188) or ICWT (aHR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0–2.28, P = 0.294). An insufficient ablative margin was a risk factor for LTP (aHR = 6.13, 95% CI = 1.41–22.49, P = 0.019). The major complication rates were 1.2%, 0%, 2.5%, and 21.4% in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively. Conclusion ICWT was associated with a lower LTP rate compared to ICT when performing tumor-puncturing RFA. An insufficient ablation margin was a risk factor for LTP.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the incidence of and factors associated with major complications, delayed discharge, and emergency room (ER) visits or readmission after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) <3 cm in a recent cohort at a tertiary cancer center. Methods: A total of 188 patients with treatment-naïve single HCCs <3 cm who underwent RFA between January 2018 and April 2021 were included in the analysis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with major complications, delayed discharge, and ER visits or readmission. Local tumor progression (LTP) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis. Results: Major complications occurred in 3.2% (6/188) of the patients. The longest diameter of the ablation zone was significantly larger in patients with major complications (P=0.023). Delayed discharge occurred in 5.8% (9/188) of the patients, for which albumin-bilirubin grade 3 was identified as an important determinant. No variables other than major complications were significantly associated with ER visits or readmission, which occurred in 7.0% (13/188) of the patients. Major complications, delayed discharge, and ER visits or readmission were not substantially related to the post-treatment outcomes of LTP and overall survival. Conclusion This study confirmed RFA as a highly safe procedure for single HCCs <3 cm, despite the rapidly changing RFA techniques in the most recent cohort. A large ablation zone and poor liver function were predictors of major complications and delayed discharge, respectively.

Objective: To compare the therapeutic outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) and laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) for single subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: We screened 244 consecutive patients who had received either LHR or LRFA between January 2014 and December 2016. The feasibility of LRFA in patients who underwent LHR was retrospectively assessed by two interventional radiologists. Finally, 60 LRFA-feasible patients who had received LHR and 29 patients who had received LRFA as the first treatment for a solitary subcapsular HCC between 1 cm and 3 cm were finally included. We compared the therapeutic outcomes, including local tumor progression (LTP), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups before and after propensity score (PS) matching. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was also used to evaluate the difference in OS and RFS between the two groups for all 89 patients. Results: PS matching yielded 23 patients in each group. The cumulative LTP and OS rates were not significantly different between the LHR and LRFA groups after PS matching (p = 0.900 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year LTP rates were 4.6% and 4.4%, respectively, and OS rates were 100% and 90.7%, respectively. The RFS rate was higher in LHR group without statistical significance (p = 0.070), with 5-year rates of 78.3% and 45.3%, respectively. OS was not significantly different between the LHR (reference) and LRFA groups in multivariable analyses, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.12–1.54) (p = 0.818). RFS was higher in LHR (reference) than in LRFA without statistical significance in multivariable analysis, with an HR of 2.01 (0.87–4.66) (p = 0.102). Conclusion There was no significant difference in therapeutic outcomes between LHR and LRFA for single subcapsular HCCs measuring 1–3 cm. The difference in RFS should be further evaluated in a larger study.