Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.

In patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), initial recurrence risk stratification based on clinical, histopathological, and perioperative data remains the key determinant for guiding management strategies during the first 1-2 years post-treatment. However, the adoption of ongoing risk stratification (ORS), which dynamically reassesses risk by integrating longitudinal clinical data and treatment response, enables more precise long-term prognostic assessment and facilitates highly individualized management. Building upon recent guidelines, the 2026 KTA guideline has been further refined by incorporating robust evidence from large-scale national cohorts and comprehensive systematic reviews. These updated recommendations outline contemporary concepts of ORS, risk-adapted TSH suppression targets, optimized surveillance modalities for recurrence detection, and disease-specific long-term follow-up strategies. Reflecting the paradigm shift toward de-escalated treatment, this revision integrates evolved perspectives on TSH suppression intensity, the clinical interpretation of thyroglobulin levels, and tailored follow-up intervals. These evidence-based recommendations aim to minimize unnecessary treatment and excessive surveillance in the large proportion of patients with excellent prognosis after initial therapy, while ensuring that each patient receives appropriately tailored and effective long-term management.

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.

Purpose: The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups. Results: The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867). Conclusion The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose: The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups. Results: The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867). Conclusion The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.

Purpose: The long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups. Results: The required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867). Conclusion The mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.