Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.

The sixth edition of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) was published in 2025. This review compared KMAP-DD 2025 with four major international clinical practice guidelines: Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Major Depressive Disorders, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Depression Guideline, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists Clinical Practice Guidelines for Mood Disorders, and British Association for Psychopharmacology Guideline. While KMAP-DD is based on expert consensus, and others on evidence-based methods, overall treatment strategies for depressive episodes were fairly consistent. Especially, KMAP-DD 2025 offers more structured recommendations in areas lacking strong evidence, such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder, perinatal depression, and depression with medical comorbidities. KMAP-DD 2025 also reflected Korean clinical practice patterns emphasizing rapid symptom relief and early use of combination strategies. Despite limitations as a consensus-based guideline, KMAP-DD 2025 complements evidence-based approaches and provides practical, situation-specific guidance for real-world clinical decision-making in Korea.

Background: Previous studies have shown various positive associations between the usual source of care (USC) and medication adherence in chronic diseases. However, no studies specifically on patients with diabetes have been conducted in Korea. This study examined the association between the USC type and medication adherence in patients with diabetes. Methods: Data from the 2021 Korea Health Panel Survey were used. The final sample comprised 1,493 participants aged ≥20 years. The types of USC were categorized into three groups: no USC, place only (without a regular doctor [RD]), and RD. Medication adherence was assessed using detailed items (dose, frequency, time, and discontinuation) and a four-point Likert scale. Logistic regression analysis was conducted with adjustment for control variables. Results: The odds ratios (ORs) for overall medication adherence were significantly higher in the RD group at 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15– 2.40) than in the no-USC group. No significant difference was observed in the place-only group at 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49–1.09). The ORs for medication adherence for each item (dosage, frequency, and timing) were also significantly higher in the RD group (2.21, 1.95, and 1.67, respectively). No statistically significant differences in these parameters were observed in the place-only group. Conclusion The presence of an RD positively affected medication adherence in patients with diabetes, but the presence of place-only did not. These findings emphasize the importance of an RD for medication adherence.

Background: Previous studies have shown various positive associations between the usual source of care (USC) and medication adherence in chronic diseases. However, no studies specifically on patients with diabetes have been conducted in Korea. This study examined the association between the USC type and medication adherence in patients with diabetes. Methods: Data from the 2021 Korea Health Panel Survey were used. The final sample comprised 1,493 participants aged ≥20 years. The types of USC were categorized into three groups: no USC, place only (without a regular doctor [RD]), and RD. Medication adherence was assessed using detailed items (dose, frequency, time, and discontinuation) and a four-point Likert scale. Logistic regression analysis was conducted with adjustment for control variables. Results: The odds ratios (ORs) for overall medication adherence were significantly higher in the RD group at 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15– 2.40) than in the no-USC group. No significant difference was observed in the place-only group at 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49–1.09). The ORs for medication adherence for each item (dosage, frequency, and timing) were also significantly higher in the RD group (2.21, 1.95, and 1.67, respectively). No statistically significant differences in these parameters were observed in the place-only group. Conclusion The presence of an RD positively affected medication adherence in patients with diabetes, but the presence of place-only did not. These findings emphasize the importance of an RD for medication adherence.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Background: Previous studies have shown various positive associations between the usual source of care (USC) and medication adherence in chronic diseases. However, no studies specifically on patients with diabetes have been conducted in Korea. This study examined the association between the USC type and medication adherence in patients with diabetes. Methods: Data from the 2021 Korea Health Panel Survey were used. The final sample comprised 1,493 participants aged ≥20 years. The types of USC were categorized into three groups: no USC, place only (without a regular doctor [RD]), and RD. Medication adherence was assessed using detailed items (dose, frequency, time, and discontinuation) and a four-point Likert scale. Logistic regression analysis was conducted with adjustment for control variables. Results: The odds ratios (ORs) for overall medication adherence were significantly higher in the RD group at 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15– 2.40) than in the no-USC group. No significant difference was observed in the place-only group at 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49–1.09). The ORs for medication adherence for each item (dosage, frequency, and timing) were also significantly higher in the RD group (2.21, 1.95, and 1.67, respectively). No statistically significant differences in these parameters were observed in the place-only group. Conclusion The presence of an RD positively affected medication adherence in patients with diabetes, but the presence of place-only did not. These findings emphasize the importance of an RD for medication adherence.

Background: Previous studies have shown various positive associations between the usual source of care (USC) and medication adherence in chronic diseases. However, no studies specifically on patients with diabetes have been conducted in Korea. This study examined the association between the USC type and medication adherence in patients with diabetes. Methods: Data from the 2021 Korea Health Panel Survey were used. The final sample comprised 1,493 participants aged ≥20 years. The types of USC were categorized into three groups: no USC, place only (without a regular doctor [RD]), and RD. Medication adherence was assessed using detailed items (dose, frequency, time, and discontinuation) and a four-point Likert scale. Logistic regression analysis was conducted with adjustment for control variables. Results: The odds ratios (ORs) for overall medication adherence were significantly higher in the RD group at 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15– 2.40) than in the no-USC group. No significant difference was observed in the place-only group at 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49–1.09). The ORs for medication adherence for each item (dosage, frequency, and timing) were also significantly higher in the RD group (2.21, 1.95, and 1.67, respectively). No statistically significant differences in these parameters were observed in the place-only group. Conclusion The presence of an RD positively affected medication adherence in patients with diabetes, but the presence of place-only did not. These findings emphasize the importance of an RD for medication adherence.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Objective: Since its development in 2002 by the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Korean Society for Affective Disorders, the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) has undergone five revisions. Methods: To improve survey efficiency, reflect general clinical practice, and facilitate comparisons with previous KMAP-DD revisions, the overall structure of the questionnaire was retained. The six sections of the questionnaire were as follows:1) pharmacological treatment strategies for major depressive disorder with and without psychotic features; 2) pharmacological treatment strategies for persistent depressive disorder and other depressive disorder subtypes; 3) consensus on treatment-resistant depression; 4) selection of an antidepressant in consideration of safety, adverse effects, and comorbid physical conditions; 5) treatment strategies for special populations (children/adolescents, elderly, and women); and 6) non-pharmacological biological therapies. First-, second-, and third-line treatment recommendations were statistically derived. Results: Compared to KMAP-DD 2021, only minor changes were noted, due to the limited introduction of new medications or treatment modalities. Nonetheless, notable shifts included an increased preference for atypical antipsychotics (AAPs), and higher preference of combination strategies involving AAPs and mood stabilizers, indicating a more proactive and intensive treatment trend in Korea. Conclusion KMAP-DD is expected to serve as a valuable clinical resource by providing expert consensus-based recommendations on specific treatment strategies and pharmacological options for major depressive disorders, thereby supporting the integration of real-world clinical practice with evidence-based medicine.