1.Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Implications of the “Probable Hepatocellular Carcinoma” Category in the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Guidelines v2022
Jeong Hee YOON ; Jin-Young CHOI ; Young Kon KIM ; Chang Hee LEE ; Jeong Woo KIM ; Won CHANG ; Joon-Il CHOI ; Seung-seob KIM ; Hee Sun PARK ; Eun Sun LEE ; Jeong-Sik YU ; Seong Jin PARK ; Myung-Won YOU ; Myoung-jin JANG ; Beom Jin PARK ; Jeong Min LEE
Korean Journal of Radiology 2026;27(4):318-331
Objective:
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the “probable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)” category in the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) v2022 guidelines.
Materials and Methods:
This multicenter retrospective study included patients at risk of HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between January 2015 and June 2018; a subgroup of these patients also underwent liver CT. Eligible patients had at least one non-cystic lesion (≥10 mm) with a reference standard. Four radiologists interpreted the images independently and the results were pooled. The performance of “definite HCC” and “probable HCC” together and “probable HCC” alone were compared between v2018 and v2022.
Results:
A total of 2,237 patients (1,666 men; mean age, 59 ± 11 years) with 2,445 lesions were included. In v2022, 1.5% (143/9,780) of the lesions were additionally categorized as “probable HCC” by four reviewers on MRI; among these, 104 lesions were not HCCs. Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) or FNH-like nodules constituted 90.4% (94/104) of the false positives. When “definite HCC” and “probable HCC” were combined, v2022 showed higher sensitivity (83.7% [5,670/6,776] vs. 83.1% [5,631/6,776]) but lower specificity (77.1% [2,316/3,004] vs. 80.6% [2,420/3,004]) than v2018 (P < 0.001). For “probable HCC” alone, v2022 showed a lower positive predictive value (PPV) than v2018 (64.1% [373/582] vs. 76.1% [334/439], P < 0.001). In v2022, lesions with non-rim arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE) showed a lower PPV than those without APHE (42.3% [91/215] vs. 76.8% [282/367], P < 0.001). In the CT subgroup (n = 1,590), 1.6% (99/6,360) of the lesions were reassessed as “probable HCC,” and its PPV was 83.8% (83/99) in v2022 whereas no lesions were classified as “probable HCC” under v2018.
Conclusion
The revised “probable HCC” category in the KLCA-NCC v2022 aligns with updates in the diagnostic flow, demonstrating acceptable performance on MRI and CT. Notably, FNH or FNH-like nodules can be misclassified as “probable HCC” when MRI is used.
2.Guidelines for the Management of Adult Subglottic and Tracheal Stenosis From the Korean Bronchoesophagological Society
Jung-Hae CHO ; Gene HUH ; Jae-Keun CHO ; Jae Won CHANG ; Jun-Ook PARK ; Young Chan LEE ; Jae Hyun JEON ; Jeon Yeob JANG ; Byeong-Ho JEONG ; Yeon Soo KIM ; Inn-Chul NAM ; Gil Joon LEE ; Woo Sik YU ; Heejin KIM ; Minhyung LEE ; Ji Won KIM ; Seung Hoon WOO ; Il-Seok PARK ; Jin Pyeong KIM ;
Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology 2026;19(1):1-20
Subglottic stenosis (SGS) and tracheal stenosis (TS) are rare conditions that can cause significant breathing difficulties and, if not properly managed, may lead to life-threatening complications. Despite their clinical importance, debate continues regarding the optimal management of adult SGS and TS, and no comprehensive guidelines have been established to date. The Korean Bronchoesophagological Society appointed a task force to develop clinical practice guidelines with the goal of providing evidence-based recommendations for managing SGS and TS in adults. The task force conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using predefined search terms aligned with key clinical questions. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which also informed the formulation and reporting of the recommendations. The strength of each recommendation reflects the guideline panel’s confidence that the benefits of an intervention outweigh its risks for eligible patients. After drafting the guidelines, feedback was obtained through Delphi questionnaires completed by members of the Korean Bronchoesophagological Society. Ultimately, the committee developed 17 evidence-based recommendations across four categories: initial evaluation, medical management, surgical treatment, and postoperative management and rehabilitation. These guidelines aim to support clinicians in delivering optimal care to adult patients with SGS and TS.
3.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
Background:
Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better.
Methods:
We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year.
Results:
After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different.
Conclusion
There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.
4.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.
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.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
Background:
Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better.
Methods:
We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year.
Results:
After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different.
Conclusion
There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.
7.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
Background:
Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better.
Methods:
We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year.
Results:
After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different.
Conclusion
There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.
8.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
Background:
Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better.
Methods:
We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year.
Results:
After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different.
Conclusion
There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.
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.Gender and Menopause Impact on Recurrence and Cancer-Specific Mortality in Bladder Cancer After Radical Cystectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Jee Soo PARK ; Won Sik JANG ; Jieun HEO ; Won Sik HAM ; Kyung Hwan KIM ; Jong Kil NAM ; Bum-Jin LIM ; Bum Sik HONG ; Wook NAM ; Sangchul LEE ; Jong Jin OH ; Seung Hwan JEONG ; Ja Hyeon KU ; Tae Il NOH ; Sung Gu KANG ; Seok Ho KANG ; Yun-Sok HA ; Tae Gyun KWON ; Tae‑Hwan KIM ; Jongchan KIM ; Geehyun SONG ; Ho Kyung SEO ; Wan SONG ; Hyun Hwan SUNG ; Byong Chang JEONG
Journal of Urologic Oncology 2025;23(1):88-93
Purpose:
Although bladder cancer occurs three to 4 times more frequently in men than in women, the relative number of deaths compared to incidence is higher in women, suggesting that women have a worse prognosis than men. Emerging evidence indicates that the activity of the sex steroid hormone pathway may play a role in bladder cancer development, with demonstrations that both androgens and estrogens have biological effects on bladder cancer in vitro and in vivo. This study investigates the influence of sex and menopausal status on recurrence and cancer-specific death (CSD) in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC).
Materials and Methods:
This retrospective analysis included 3,913 patients from the Korean Bladder Cancer Study Group Database who underwent RC between 2010 and 2019. Patients were categorized based on gender and menopausal status (≤50 years: premenopausal; >50 years: postmenopausal). Pathological factors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, recurrence, and CSD rates were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher exact tests.
Results:
Among the 3,913 patients, 400 (10.2%) were female. Premenopausal females exhibited significantly lower recurrence rates (28.6%) compared to postmenopausal females (45.7%). CSD rates were similarly reduced in premenopausal females (12.0% vs. 22.2% in postmenopausal females). No significant sex differences in recurrence or CSD were observed among premenopausal patients. Pathological T stage, nodal status, and lymphovascular invasion were significantly associated with recurrence in males, while nodal status alone was significant in females. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was significantly more frequently administered to male patients under the age of 50, while no difference was observed in the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy among female patients based on menopausal status.
Conclusion
Hormonal changes associated with menopause significantly influence bladder cancer outcomes in women. Premenopausal hormonal environments seem protective, underscoring the need for further research into hormone-driven mechanisms in bladder cancer.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail