1.Prospective Evaluation of Irreversible Electroporation With Clustered Electrodes as a Novel Palliative Approach for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
Joon Ho KWON ; Man-Deuk KIM ; Maher Salamah ALANAZI ; Jiwon SUK ; Seung JEONG ; Seungmin BANG ; Moon Jae CHUNG ; Ho Kyoung HWANG ; Seung Soo HONG ; Kichang HAN ; Gyoung Min KIM ; Jong Yun WON ; Juil PARK ; Jaesung CHO ; Seok Min JEONG ; Tae Yang CHOI
Korean Journal of Radiology 2026;27(2):152-160
Objective:
This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncologic outcomes of irreversible electroporation (IRE) using a clustered electrode in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).
Materials and Methods:
In this single-center prospective cohort study, 13 patients with LAPC (median age, 60 years; range, 48–78 years) underwent clustered electrode IRE between September 2022 and September 2024. Patient characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Endpoints included technical success, procedure-related complications, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS).
Results:
Tumors were located in the pancreatic head in four patients (30.8%) and in the body/tail in nine (69.2%). The median tumor size was 2.4 cm (1.5–4.0 cm), and vascular invasion was present in all patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Intraoperative IRE was performed in 11 (84.6%) patients, and 2 (15.4%) patients underwent percutaneous IRE. Gastrointestinal bleeding events as major complications occurred in two patients (15.4%) and, both were successfully controlled by embolization. No 60-day mortality was observed. At a median follow-up of 24.5 months (range, 9.9–33.4 months) after IRE, median OS and PFS from IRE were 20.1 and 14.5 months, respectively.
Conclusion
IRE using clustered electrodes for LAPC appears to be a feasible therapeutic approach, offering reliable technical success and acceptable safety. Survival outcomes are encouraging; however, larger, controlled studies are required.
2.Korean Thyroid Association Guidelines on the Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers; Part II. Follow-up Surveillance after Initial Treatment 2026
Eun Kyung LEE ; Seung Heon KANG ; Bon Seok KOO ; Mijin KIM ; Min Joo KIM ; Bo Hyun KIM ; Ji Won KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Sohyun PARK ; Ji-In BANG ; Kyorim BACK ; Youngduk SEO ; Young-Ik SON ; Young Shin SONG ; Dong Yeob SHIN ; Jong-Hyuk AHN ; Hwa Young AHN ; So Won OH ; Ho-Ryun WON ; Won Sang YOO ; Min Kyoung LEE ; Sang-Woo LEE ; Jeongmin LEE ; Ji Ye LEE ; Dong-Jun LIM ; Ki-Wook CHUNG ; Ari CHONG ; Jin Hyang JUNG ; Sun Wook CHO ; Yoon Young CHO ; Chae Moon HONG ; Young Joo PARK ;
International Journal of Thyroidology 2026;19(1):1-40
In patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), initial recurrence risk stratification based on clinical, histopathological, and perioperative data remains the key determinant for guiding management strategies during the first 1-2 years post-treatment. However, the adoption of ongoing risk stratification (ORS), which dynamically reassesses risk by integrating longitudinal clinical data and treatment response, enables more precise long-term prognostic assessment and facilitates highly individualized management. Building upon recent guidelines, the 2026 KTA guideline has been further refined by incorporating robust evidence from large-scale national cohorts and comprehensive systematic reviews. These updated recommendations outline contemporary concepts of ORS, risk-adapted TSH suppression targets, optimized surveillance modalities for recurrence detection, and disease-specific long-term follow-up strategies. Reflecting the paradigm shift toward de-escalated treatment, this revision integrates evolved perspectives on TSH suppression intensity, the clinical interpretation of thyroglobulin levels, and tailored follow-up intervals. These evidence-based recommendations aim to minimize unnecessary treatment and excessive surveillance in the large proportion of patients with excellent prognosis after initial therapy, while ensuring that each patient receives appropriately tailored and effective long-term management.
3.Nipple swab culture profile as a potential predictor of postoperative complications in autologous breast reconstruction: a retrospective study
Sun-Hyeok KIM ; Yi-Jun MOON ; Seung-Pil JUNG ; Hyung-Chul LEE ; Jae-Ho CHUNG ; Eul-Sik YOON
Archives of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2025;31(2):35-40
Background:
The nipple is a potential source of pathogens because its lactiferous ducts act as direct conduits from the nipple–areolar complex to the breast parenchyma. Our previous studies identified breast microbiota as a factor in postoperative complications following immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implants and acellular dermal matrix. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between preoperative nipple swab microbiota and the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) after autologous breast reconstruction.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction following total mastectomy. Preoperative nipple swab cultures were obtained. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and complication rates were compared between culture-positive and culture-negative groups. Microbiological data, including antibiotic‑resistance profiles, were collected.
Results:
Among 39 reconstructed breasts, 18 (46.9%) had positive preoperative nipple cultures. The mean duration of drain placement was significantly longer in the culture‑positive group (14.39±3.96 days) than in the culture‑negative group (12.14±2.76 days, P=0.045). Methicillin‑susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis accounted for 55.0% of isolates. Of the four SSIs observed, three occurred in patients with positive preoperative cultures.
Conclusions
Although pathogen strains differed between preoperative and postoperative settings, obtaining preoperative nipple microflora cultures and determining antibiotic‑resistance profiles can guide immediate antibiotic selection for SSIs and enhance postoperative management.
4.Nipple swab culture profile as a potential predictor of postoperative complications in autologous breast reconstruction: a retrospective study
Sun-Hyeok KIM ; Yi-Jun MOON ; Seung-Pil JUNG ; Hyung-Chul LEE ; Jae-Ho CHUNG ; Eul-Sik YOON
Archives of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2025;31(2):35-40
Background:
The nipple is a potential source of pathogens because its lactiferous ducts act as direct conduits from the nipple–areolar complex to the breast parenchyma. Our previous studies identified breast microbiota as a factor in postoperative complications following immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implants and acellular dermal matrix. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between preoperative nipple swab microbiota and the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) after autologous breast reconstruction.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction following total mastectomy. Preoperative nipple swab cultures were obtained. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and complication rates were compared between culture-positive and culture-negative groups. Microbiological data, including antibiotic‑resistance profiles, were collected.
Results:
Among 39 reconstructed breasts, 18 (46.9%) had positive preoperative nipple cultures. The mean duration of drain placement was significantly longer in the culture‑positive group (14.39±3.96 days) than in the culture‑negative group (12.14±2.76 days, P=0.045). Methicillin‑susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis accounted for 55.0% of isolates. Of the four SSIs observed, three occurred in patients with positive preoperative cultures.
Conclusions
Although pathogen strains differed between preoperative and postoperative settings, obtaining preoperative nipple microflora cultures and determining antibiotic‑resistance profiles can guide immediate antibiotic selection for SSIs and enhance postoperative management.
5.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
6.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
7.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
8.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
9.Nipple swab culture profile as a potential predictor of postoperative complications in autologous breast reconstruction: a retrospective study
Sun-Hyeok KIM ; Yi-Jun MOON ; Seung-Pil JUNG ; Hyung-Chul LEE ; Jae-Ho CHUNG ; Eul-Sik YOON
Archives of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2025;31(2):35-40
Background:
The nipple is a potential source of pathogens because its lactiferous ducts act as direct conduits from the nipple–areolar complex to the breast parenchyma. Our previous studies identified breast microbiota as a factor in postoperative complications following immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implants and acellular dermal matrix. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between preoperative nipple swab microbiota and the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) after autologous breast reconstruction.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction following total mastectomy. Preoperative nipple swab cultures were obtained. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and complication rates were compared between culture-positive and culture-negative groups. Microbiological data, including antibiotic‑resistance profiles, were collected.
Results:
Among 39 reconstructed breasts, 18 (46.9%) had positive preoperative nipple cultures. The mean duration of drain placement was significantly longer in the culture‑positive group (14.39±3.96 days) than in the culture‑negative group (12.14±2.76 days, P=0.045). Methicillin‑susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis accounted for 55.0% of isolates. Of the four SSIs observed, three occurred in patients with positive preoperative cultures.
Conclusions
Although pathogen strains differed between preoperative and postoperative settings, obtaining preoperative nipple microflora cultures and determining antibiotic‑resistance profiles can guide immediate antibiotic selection for SSIs and enhance postoperative management.
10.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail