1.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
2.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.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
4.DRG2 levels in prostate cancer cell lines predict response to PARP inhibitor during docetaxel treatment
Jeong Min LEE ; Won Hyeok LEE ; Seung Hyeon CHO ; Jeong Woo PARK ; Hyuk Nam KWON ; Ji Hye KIM ; Sang Hun LEE ; Ji Hyung YOON ; Sungchan PARK ; Seong Cheol KIM
Investigative and Clinical Urology 2025;66(1):56-66
Purpose:
Developmentally regulated GTP-binding protein 2 (DRG2) regulates microtubule dynamics and G2/M arrest during docetaxel treatment. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) acts as an important repair system for DNA damage caused by docetaxel treatment. This study investigated whether DRG2 expression affects response to PARP inhibitors (olaparib) using prostate cancer cell lines PC3, DU145, LNCaP-FGC, and LNCaP-LN3.
Materials and Methods:
The cell viability and DRG2 expression levels were assessed using colorimetric-based cell viability assay and western blot. Cells were transfected with DRG2 siRNA, and pcDNA6/V5-DRG2 was used to overexpress DRG2. Flow cytometry was applied for cell cycle assay and apoptosis analysis using the Annexing V cell death assay.
Results:
The expression of DRG2 was highest in LNCaP-LN3 and lowest in DU145 cells. Expressions of p53 in PC3, DU145, and the two LNCaP cell lines were null-type, high-expression, and medium-expression, respectively. In PC3 (DRG2 high, p53 null) cells, docetaxel increased G2/M arrest without apoptosis; however, subsequent treatment with olaparib promoted apoptosis. In DU145 and LNCaP-FGC (DRG2 low), docetaxel increased sub-G1 but not G2/M arrest and induced apoptosis, whereas olaparib had no additional effect. In LNCaP-LN3 (DRG2 high, p53 wild-type), docetaxel increased sub-G1 and G2/M arrest, furthermore olaparib enhanced cell death. Docetaxel and olaparib combination treatment had a slight effect on DRG2 knockdown PC3, but increased apoptosis in DRG2-overexpressed DU145 cells.
Conclusions
DRG2 and p53 expressions play an important role in prostate cancer cell lines treated with docetaxel, and DRG2 levels can predict the response to PARP inhibitors.
5.Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality
Rosa OH ; Seohyun KIM ; So Hyun CHO ; Jiyoon KIM ; You-Bin LEE ; Sang-Man JIN ; Kyu Yeon HUR ; Gyuri KIM ; Jae Hyeon KIM
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2025;49(1):80-91
Background:
Given the association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic risks, a new term, metabolic dysfunction- associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has been proposed. We aimed to explore the association between MASLD and all-cause, cause-specific mortalities.
Methods:
We included individuals with steatotic liver disease (SLD) from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Moreover, SLD was defined as a fatty liver index ≥30. Furthermore, MASLD, metabolic alcohol-associated liver disease (MetALD), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD) with metabolic dysfunction (MD) were categorized based on alcohol consumption and MD. We also analyzed all-cause, liver-, cancer-, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)- and cardiovascular (CV)-related mortalities.
Results:
This retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,298,993 individuals aged 40 to 79 years for a mean follow-up duration of 9.04 years. The prevalence of MASLD, MetALD, and ALD with MD was 33.11%, 3.93%, and 1.00%, respectively. Relative to the “no SLD” group, multivariable analysis identified that MASLD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 1.31), MetALD (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.44), and ALD with MD group (aHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.68 to 1.93) have a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality. Furthermore, MASLD, MetALD, ALD with MD groups showed higher liver-, cancer- and HCC-related mortality than “no SLD” group. While all-cause specific mortalities increase from MASLD to MetALD to ALD with MD, the MetALD group shows a lower risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD. However, ALD with MD group still have a higher risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD.
Conclusion
SLD is associated with an increased risk of all-cause, liver-, cancer-, HCC-, and CV-related mortalities.
6.Advanced technique of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for revision surgery: a technical note
Young-Il KO ; Jin Young LEE ; Hun-Chul KIM ; Hyeon Guk CHO ; Jeong Woo PARK ; Sang-Ho HAN
Asian Spine Journal 2025;19(2):267-274
The application area of biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is gradually expanding. Compared with conventional fusion surgery, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using BESS (BESS-TLIF) has the advantages of less bleeding, minimal postoperative pain, and faster recovery. This technical note highlights its application in managing complex conditions such as scar tissue adhesion, altered anatomy, and implant removal, common in reoperations. The method focuses on precise dissection, endoscopic visualization, and careful tissue handling to ensure effective decompression and stabilization. Three representative cases, including reoperations for recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease (ASD) following prior fusion, and ASD with nonunion of the prior fusion site requiring fusion extension, were described. All three cases exhibited clinical improvement following surgery. BESS is an effective and safe method for spinal revision surgery not only in simple decompression surgery but also in cases that required fusion surgery. As BESS is advancing, its role in complex spinal surgeries is expected to expand, potentially setting new standards in minimally invasive spine surgery.
7.Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality
Rosa OH ; Seohyun KIM ; So Hyun CHO ; Jiyoon KIM ; You-Bin LEE ; Sang-Man JIN ; Kyu Yeon HUR ; Gyuri KIM ; Jae Hyeon KIM
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2025;49(1):80-91
Background:
Given the association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic risks, a new term, metabolic dysfunction- associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has been proposed. We aimed to explore the association between MASLD and all-cause, cause-specific mortalities.
Methods:
We included individuals with steatotic liver disease (SLD) from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Moreover, SLD was defined as a fatty liver index ≥30. Furthermore, MASLD, metabolic alcohol-associated liver disease (MetALD), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD) with metabolic dysfunction (MD) were categorized based on alcohol consumption and MD. We also analyzed all-cause, liver-, cancer-, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)- and cardiovascular (CV)-related mortalities.
Results:
This retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,298,993 individuals aged 40 to 79 years for a mean follow-up duration of 9.04 years. The prevalence of MASLD, MetALD, and ALD with MD was 33.11%, 3.93%, and 1.00%, respectively. Relative to the “no SLD” group, multivariable analysis identified that MASLD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 1.31), MetALD (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.44), and ALD with MD group (aHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.68 to 1.93) have a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality. Furthermore, MASLD, MetALD, ALD with MD groups showed higher liver-, cancer- and HCC-related mortality than “no SLD” group. While all-cause specific mortalities increase from MASLD to MetALD to ALD with MD, the MetALD group shows a lower risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD. However, ALD with MD group still have a higher risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD.
Conclusion
SLD is associated with an increased risk of all-cause, liver-, cancer-, HCC-, and CV-related mortalities.
8.Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality
Rosa OH ; Seohyun KIM ; So Hyun CHO ; Jiyoon KIM ; You-Bin LEE ; Sang-Man JIN ; Kyu Yeon HUR ; Gyuri KIM ; Jae Hyeon KIM
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2025;49(1):80-91
Background:
Given the association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic risks, a new term, metabolic dysfunction- associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has been proposed. We aimed to explore the association between MASLD and all-cause, cause-specific mortalities.
Methods:
We included individuals with steatotic liver disease (SLD) from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Moreover, SLD was defined as a fatty liver index ≥30. Furthermore, MASLD, metabolic alcohol-associated liver disease (MetALD), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD) with metabolic dysfunction (MD) were categorized based on alcohol consumption and MD. We also analyzed all-cause, liver-, cancer-, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)- and cardiovascular (CV)-related mortalities.
Results:
This retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,298,993 individuals aged 40 to 79 years for a mean follow-up duration of 9.04 years. The prevalence of MASLD, MetALD, and ALD with MD was 33.11%, 3.93%, and 1.00%, respectively. Relative to the “no SLD” group, multivariable analysis identified that MASLD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 1.31), MetALD (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.44), and ALD with MD group (aHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.68 to 1.93) have a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality. Furthermore, MASLD, MetALD, ALD with MD groups showed higher liver-, cancer- and HCC-related mortality than “no SLD” group. While all-cause specific mortalities increase from MASLD to MetALD to ALD with MD, the MetALD group shows a lower risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD. However, ALD with MD group still have a higher risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD.
Conclusion
SLD is associated with an increased risk of all-cause, liver-, cancer-, HCC-, and CV-related mortalities.
9.Advanced technique of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for revision surgery: a technical note
Young-Il KO ; Jin Young LEE ; Hun-Chul KIM ; Hyeon Guk CHO ; Jeong Woo PARK ; Sang-Ho HAN
Asian Spine Journal 2025;19(2):267-274
The application area of biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is gradually expanding. Compared with conventional fusion surgery, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using BESS (BESS-TLIF) has the advantages of less bleeding, minimal postoperative pain, and faster recovery. This technical note highlights its application in managing complex conditions such as scar tissue adhesion, altered anatomy, and implant removal, common in reoperations. The method focuses on precise dissection, endoscopic visualization, and careful tissue handling to ensure effective decompression and stabilization. Three representative cases, including reoperations for recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease (ASD) following prior fusion, and ASD with nonunion of the prior fusion site requiring fusion extension, were described. All three cases exhibited clinical improvement following surgery. BESS is an effective and safe method for spinal revision surgery not only in simple decompression surgery but also in cases that required fusion surgery. As BESS is advancing, its role in complex spinal surgeries is expected to expand, potentially setting new standards in minimally invasive spine surgery.
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