1.Comparing Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging and T2* Gradient-Recalled Echo for Cerebral Microbleeds Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Su Jeong YANG ; Jae‑Sung LIM ; Yangsean CHOI ; Ho Sung KIM ; Sang Joon KIM ; Jae-Hong LEE ; Chong Hyun SUH
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2026;22(2):193-202
Background:
and Purpose Criteria for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities in anti-amyloid therapy are based on T2* gradient-recalled echo (GRE), but susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) is widely used, creating uncertainty. This study quantitatively compared the detectability of SWI and GRE for cerebral microbleeds and established evidence supporting distinct microbleed criteria for each.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies directly comparing SWI and GRE up to August 8, 2024. Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. The pooled proportion of microbleed detection and detection ratio were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed based on magnetic field strength (1.5 T vs. 3 T) and SWI slice thickness (<2 mm vs. ≥2 mm), equipment vendor, and study quality.
Results:
Thirteen studies were included. SWI detected cerebral microbleeds approximately 1.6times more effectively than GRE. At 3.0 T and 1.5 T, SWI exhibited 1.7-fold and 1.5-fold greater detectability, respectively. SWI with thinner slices (<2 mm) showed a 1.9-fold improvement, while thicker slices (≥2 mm) showed a 1.3-fold improvement. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between vendors (0.61 vs. 0.60, p=0.89), or by study quality (0.61 vs. 0.59,p=0.89).
Conclusions
SWI detects cerebral microbleeds about 1.6 times more effectively than GRE, highlighting important differences between the two techniques. Cautious exploration of adjusted thresholds may be needed, and prospective validation in therapy-specific cohorts will be essential before clinical application.
2.Impact of obesity on renal function in elderly Korean adults: a national population-based cohort study
Jihyun YANG ; Hui Seung LEE ; Chi-Yeon LIM ; Hyunsuk KIM ; Sungjin CHUNG ; Soon Hyo KWON ; Jang-Hee CHO ; Kyung Don YOO ; Woo Yeong PARK ; In O SUN ; Byung Chul YU ; Gang-Jee KO ; Jae Won YANG ; Won Min HWANG ; Sang Heon SONG ; Sung Joon SHIN ; Yu Ah HONG ; Eunjin BAE ; Young Youl HYUN
Kidney Research and Clinical Practice 2026;45(1):65-76
Background:
Obesity is a well-known risk factor for chronic kidney disease and its progression. However, the impact of obesity on the renal function of the elderly population is uncertain. We investigated the association between obesity and renal outcomes in the elderly.
Methods:
We analyzed 130,504 participants from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-Senior cohort. Obesity was classified according to body mass index (BMI), sex-specific waist circumference (WC), and the presence of metabolic syndrome. The primary outcome was renal function decline, defined as a decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 50% from baseline or new-onset end-stage renal disease.
Results:
During a follow-up period of 559,531.1 person-years (median, 4.3 years), 2,486 participants (19.0%; incidence rate of 4.44 per 1,000 person-years) showed renal function decline. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model revealed that BMI/WC was not associated with renal function decline. However, the group with metabolic syndrome had a significantly increased risk of renal function decline compared to the group without metabolic syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.36). Compared with the non-metabolic syndrome group, the adjusted HRs (95% CI) for participants with one through five components were 0.96 (0.84–1.11), 1.10 (0.96–1.27), 1.24 (1.06–1.45), 1.37 (1.12–1.66), and 1.99 (1.42–2.79), respectively (p for trend < 0.001).
Conclusion
In elderly Korean adults, metabolic syndrome and the number of its components were associated with a higher risk of renal function decline, but BMI or WC was not significant.
3.Anti-Amyloid Imaging Abnormality in the Era of Anti-Amyloid Beta Monoclonal Antibodies:Recent Updates for the Radiologist
So Yeong JEONG ; Chong Hyun SUH ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Yangsean CHOI ; Ho Sung KIM ; Sang Joon KIM ; Jae-Hong LEE
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):17-33
Lecanemab and donanemab have received full U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and subsequently, lecanemab has been approved by the Korean FDA and it has recently entered commercial use in Korea. This has increased interest in anti-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer’s disease. Anti-amyloid immunotherapy has shown potential to modify the progression of the disease by specifically binding to amyloid β, a key pathological product in Alzheimer’s disease, and eliminating accumulated amyloid plaques in the brain. However, this treatment can be accompanied by a side-effect, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which requires periodic monitoring by MRI. It is crucial to detect ARIA and accurately assess the severity by radiology. The role of the radiologist is important in this context, requiring proficiency in basic knowledge of ARIA, and in diagnosing/evaluating ARIA. This review aims to comprehensively cover aspects of ARIA, including its definition, pathophysiology, incidence, risk factors, assessment of severity by radiology, differential diagnosis, and management.
5.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.
6.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.
7.Anti-Amyloid Imaging Abnormality in the Era of Anti-Amyloid Beta Monoclonal Antibodies:Recent Updates for the Radiologist
So Yeong JEONG ; Chong Hyun SUH ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Yangsean CHOI ; Ho Sung KIM ; Sang Joon KIM ; Jae-Hong LEE
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):17-33
Lecanemab and donanemab have received full U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and subsequently, lecanemab has been approved by the Korean FDA and it has recently entered commercial use in Korea. This has increased interest in anti-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer’s disease. Anti-amyloid immunotherapy has shown potential to modify the progression of the disease by specifically binding to amyloid β, a key pathological product in Alzheimer’s disease, and eliminating accumulated amyloid plaques in the brain. However, this treatment can be accompanied by a side-effect, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which requires periodic monitoring by MRI. It is crucial to detect ARIA and accurately assess the severity by radiology. The role of the radiologist is important in this context, requiring proficiency in basic knowledge of ARIA, and in diagnosing/evaluating ARIA. This review aims to comprehensively cover aspects of ARIA, including its definition, pathophysiology, incidence, risk factors, assessment of severity by radiology, differential diagnosis, and management.
9.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.
10.Anti-Amyloid Imaging Abnormality in the Era of Anti-Amyloid Beta Monoclonal Antibodies:Recent Updates for the Radiologist
So Yeong JEONG ; Chong Hyun SUH ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Yangsean CHOI ; Ho Sung KIM ; Sang Joon KIM ; Jae-Hong LEE
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):17-33
Lecanemab and donanemab have received full U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and subsequently, lecanemab has been approved by the Korean FDA and it has recently entered commercial use in Korea. This has increased interest in anti-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer’s disease. Anti-amyloid immunotherapy has shown potential to modify the progression of the disease by specifically binding to amyloid β, a key pathological product in Alzheimer’s disease, and eliminating accumulated amyloid plaques in the brain. However, this treatment can be accompanied by a side-effect, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which requires periodic monitoring by MRI. It is crucial to detect ARIA and accurately assess the severity by radiology. The role of the radiologist is important in this context, requiring proficiency in basic knowledge of ARIA, and in diagnosing/evaluating ARIA. This review aims to comprehensively cover aspects of ARIA, including its definition, pathophysiology, incidence, risk factors, assessment of severity by radiology, differential diagnosis, and management.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail