Purpose: Due to its rarity, treatment guidelines for appendiceal cancer have traditionally followed those established for colorectal cancer, despite showing distinct histologic and clinical features. This study aimed to compare the clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term oncologic outcomes of appendiceal cancer with those of right-sided colon cancers. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with stage I–III appendiceal, cecal, or ascending colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2010 and 2020 at our center. A 1:3:3 exact matching for age, sex, TNM stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy was performed. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Results: Overall, 245 patients with appendiceal cancer (n = 35), ascending colon cancer (n = 105), and cecal cancer (n = 105) were analyzed. Appendiceal cancer exhibited a higher proportion of T4 tumors and fewer harvested lymph nodes compared with ascending or cecal cancers. The mean follow-up duration was 9.5 years. The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were lower in appendiceal cancer (66.2% and 52.9%) than in ascending (91.2% and 78.4%) or cecal cancer (88.5% and 78.3%). Similarly, the 10-year disease-free survival rate was lower in appendiceal cancer (59.2%) compared with ascending (83.1%) and cecal cancers (78.4%). Cox regression analysis identified age (≥65 years), perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion as independent predictors of poor prognosis. Conclusion Appendiceal cancer exhibited significantly worse long-term survival compared to cecal or ascending colon cancer. Tumor perforation, nodal metastasis, and lymphovascular invasion were adverse prognostic factors for overall and disease-free survival.

Purpose: This study aimed to report the real-world outcomes of intravesical gemcitabine for bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC) in Korean patients who were unable or unwilling to undergo radical cystectomy (RC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 131 patients (median age, 69 years; 88.5% men) treated with intravesical gemcitabine for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC at nine centers between May 2019 and April 2022. The primary endpoint was 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). The secondary endpoints included factors influencing RFS, progression-free survival (PFS), cystectomy- free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk factors for recurrence were assessed using Cox regression models. Results: Patients were followed up for a median duration of 25 months, with carcinoma in situ (CIS) in 41.9% of the patients. The 1-year and 2-year RFS rates were 68% and 42%, while the 1-year and 2-year PFS rates were 87% and 77%, respectively. No significant factors influencing RFS were identified. Seventeen patients underwent RC during a median follow-up of 16 months, with the condition in three patients progressing to muscle-invasive disease on final pathological analysis. The 2-year CSS and OS rates were 98% and 97%, respectively. Intravesical gemcitabine was well-tolerated, with only seven patients (5.3%) unable to complete the full induction course. Conclusion Our research highlights the potential of intravesical gemcitabine as a viable bladder-sparing treatment option for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC, providing real-world evidence on its safety, efficacy, and tolerability.

The efficacy of clarithromycin-containing triple therapy (TT) against Helicobacter pylori has declined in Korea, with recent first-line eradication rates falling below 70%. Clarithromycin resistance exceeded 30%, undermining the standard regimen for H. pylori. These trends necessitate a change in the treatment strategy. This review analyzed the shift proposed in the draft of the 2025 Korean H. pylori guidelines. We examined the rationale for abandoning TT as a first-line empirical therapy and the establishment of a new dual-pillar strategy: 1) the declining role of clarithromycin-containing TT as a first-line treatment and 2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based tailored therapy as the recommended precision approach. We explored the 1) emergence of new empirical regimen options, 2) application of tailored therapy, and 3) adoption of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs). Empirical regimens have shifted toward four-drug combinations to achieve higher cure rates. Concomitant therapy (proton-pump inhibitor [PPI] or P-CAB+amoxicillin+clarithromycin+metronidazole) offers high efficacy but raises concerns about antibiotic overuse. As a compromise, bismuth-augmented triple regimens (adding bismuth to TT) are now recommended; these modified quadruple therapies (e.g., PACB: PPI+amoxicillin+clarithromycin+bismuth, or PAMB: PPI+amoxicillin+metronidazole+bismuth) significantly improve eradication rates without requiring a third antibiotic class. Regarding tailored therapy, PCR-based domestic clinical research data consistently achieves ≥90% cure rates in first-line treatment—markedly higher than empirical TT in Korea. Economic analyses supported the cost-effectiveness of this approach. The guideline algorithm for salvage therapy was clarified. Bismuth quadruple therapy has been confirmed as the standard second-line treatment. For third-line therapy, we analyzed the efficacy of levofloxacin-based regimens, rifabutin-based therapy, and bismuth add-on therapy with two previously unused antibiotics. The 2025 Korean guidelines establish quadruple therapies as the new standard through a dual strategy: pragmatic empirical treatment and PCR-guided tailored therapy, with P-CABs and bismuth-based regimens as key components.

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.

Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnosis is confirmed using a medley of modalities, such as the detection of amyloid-β (Aβ) neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with positron electron tomography (PET) or the appraisal of irregularities in cognitive function with examinations. Although these methods have been efficient in confirming AD pathology, the rising demand for earlier intervention during pathogenesis has led researchers to explore the diagnostic potential of fluid biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma. Since CSF sample collection is invasive and limited in quantity, biomarker detection in plasma has become more attractive and modern advancements in technology has permitted more efficient and accurate analysis of plasma biomolecules. In this study, we found that a composite of standard factors, Aβ40 and total tau levels in plasma, divided by the variation factor, plasma Aβ42 level, provide better correlation with amyloid neuroimaging and neuropsychological test results than a level comparison between total tau and Aβ42 in plasma. We collected EDTA-treated blood plasma samples of 53 subjects, of randomly selected 27 AD patients and 26 normal cognition (NC) individuals, who received amyloid-PET scans for plaque quantification, and measured plasma levels of Aβ40, Aβ42, and total tau with digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a blinded manner. There was difficulty distinguishing AD patients from controls when analyzing biomarkers independently. However, significant differentiation was observed between the two groups when comparing individual ratios of total-tau×Aβ40/Aβ42. Our results indicate that collectively comparing fluctuations of these fluid biomarkers could aid in monitoring AD pathogenesis.

Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnosis is confirmed using a medley of modalities, such as the detection of amyloid-β (Aβ) neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with positron electron tomography (PET) or the appraisal of irregularities in cognitive function with examinations. Although these methods have been efficient in confirming AD pathology, the rising demand for earlier intervention during pathogenesis has led researchers to explore the diagnostic potential of fluid biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma. Since CSF sample collection is invasive and limited in quantity, biomarker detection in plasma has become more attractive and modern advancements in technology has permitted more efficient and accurate analysis of plasma biomolecules. In this study, we found that a composite of standard factors, Aβ40 and total tau levels in plasma, divided by the variation factor, plasma Aβ42 level, provide better correlation with amyloid neuroimaging and neuropsychological test results than a level comparison between total tau and Aβ42 in plasma. We collected EDTA-treated blood plasma samples of 53 subjects, of randomly selected 27 AD patients and 26 normal cognition (NC) individuals, who received amyloid-PET scans for plaque quantification, and measured plasma levels of Aβ40, Aβ42, and total tau with digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a blinded manner. There was difficulty distinguishing AD patients from controls when analyzing biomarkers independently. However, significant differentiation was observed between the two groups when comparing individual ratios of total-tau×Aβ40/Aβ42. Our results indicate that collectively comparing fluctuations of these fluid biomarkers could aid in monitoring AD pathogenesis.

Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnosis is confirmed using a medley of modalities, such as the detection of amyloid-β (Aβ) neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with positron electron tomography (PET) or the appraisal of irregularities in cognitive function with examinations. Although these methods have been efficient in confirming AD pathology, the rising demand for earlier intervention during pathogenesis has led researchers to explore the diagnostic potential of fluid biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma. Since CSF sample collection is invasive and limited in quantity, biomarker detection in plasma has become more attractive and modern advancements in technology has permitted more efficient and accurate analysis of plasma biomolecules. In this study, we found that a composite of standard factors, Aβ40 and total tau levels in plasma, divided by the variation factor, plasma Aβ42 level, provide better correlation with amyloid neuroimaging and neuropsychological test results than a level comparison between total tau and Aβ42 in plasma. We collected EDTA-treated blood plasma samples of 53 subjects, of randomly selected 27 AD patients and 26 normal cognition (NC) individuals, who received amyloid-PET scans for plaque quantification, and measured plasma levels of Aβ40, Aβ42, and total tau with digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a blinded manner. There was difficulty distinguishing AD patients from controls when analyzing biomarkers independently. However, significant differentiation was observed between the two groups when comparing individual ratios of total-tau×Aβ40/Aβ42. Our results indicate that collectively comparing fluctuations of these fluid biomarkers could aid in monitoring AD pathogenesis.

Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnosis is confirmed using a medley of modalities, such as the detection of amyloid-β (Aβ) neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with positron electron tomography (PET) or the appraisal of irregularities in cognitive function with examinations. Although these methods have been efficient in confirming AD pathology, the rising demand for earlier intervention during pathogenesis has led researchers to explore the diagnostic potential of fluid biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma. Since CSF sample collection is invasive and limited in quantity, biomarker detection in plasma has become more attractive and modern advancements in technology has permitted more efficient and accurate analysis of plasma biomolecules. In this study, we found that a composite of standard factors, Aβ40 and total tau levels in plasma, divided by the variation factor, plasma Aβ42 level, provide better correlation with amyloid neuroimaging and neuropsychological test results than a level comparison between total tau and Aβ42 in plasma. We collected EDTA-treated blood plasma samples of 53 subjects, of randomly selected 27 AD patients and 26 normal cognition (NC) individuals, who received amyloid-PET scans for plaque quantification, and measured plasma levels of Aβ40, Aβ42, and total tau with digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a blinded manner. There was difficulty distinguishing AD patients from controls when analyzing biomarkers independently. However, significant differentiation was observed between the two groups when comparing individual ratios of total-tau×Aβ40/Aβ42. Our results indicate that collectively comparing fluctuations of these fluid biomarkers could aid in monitoring AD pathogenesis.

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.

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.