Purpose: Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data. Methods: Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared. Results: A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86). Conclusion For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.

Purpose: Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data. Methods: Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared. Results: A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86). Conclusion For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.

Purpose: Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data. Methods: Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared. Results: A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86). Conclusion For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

Objective: We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF). Methods: Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan. Results: Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.

This study was conducted to investigate potential differences in vaccine efficacy between patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy and receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the study proved the influence of vaccination timing on vaccine efficacy during active chemotherapy. Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG binding antibody assays and surrogate neutralizing antibody assays were performed after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination in 45 solid cancer patients (23 adjuvant and 22 palliative chemotherapy) and in 24 healthy controls before vaccination (baseline), at every two to four weeks after the first (post-dose 1) and the second vaccination (post-dose 2). The levels of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly from baseline through post-dose 1 to post-dose 2 in all three groups. At the post-dose 1, the anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibody levels were significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy controls. However, by post-dose 2, the seropositivity of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies uniformly reached 100% across all groups, with no significant disparity in antibody levels among the three groups. Moreover, the antibody titers were not significantly different between patients with a vaccine and chemotherapy interval of more than 14 days or those with less than 14 days. This study demonstrated that after second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, humoral immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were comparable to those of healthy controls, regardless of whether the purpose of the anti-cancer treatment was palliative or adjuvant. Furthermore, the timing of vaccination did not affect the level of humoral immunity after the second vaccination.

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.