Purpose: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard minimally invasive treatment for selected patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). This study presents the first nationwide survey of patients with EGC treated with ESD in 2023, conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research. Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from participating referral centers across Korea using a standardized case report form covering patient characteristics, tumor features, procedural details, histopathological findings, and clinical outcomes.Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to summarize nationwide ESD practice patterns and outcomes. Results: Data from 5,460 ESD cases from 5,250 patients across 27 institutions were analyzed. The mean age was 67.4 years, with 74.1% males. Multiple synchronous lesions were identified in 3.7%. Most lesions were located in the lower third of the stomach (64.0%), and differentiated-type adenocarcinomas accounted for 87.8%. The en bloc and complete resection rates were 99.2% and 91.4%, respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 80.5%, whereas local non-curative resection (L-NCR) and surgical non-curative resection (S-NCR) were identified in 2.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Additional surgery was performed more frequently in patients with S-NCR than in those with L-NCR (59.3% vs. 24.7%). The bleeding and perforation rates were 3.6% and 0.9%, respectively, and were mostly managed conservatively or endoscopically. The median length of hospitalization was 4.0 days. Conclusions This first nationwide survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current practice of EGC treatment using ESD in Korea, demonstrating high technical success and safety, and establishing a baseline dataset for future longitudinal research.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncologic outcomes of irreversible electroporation (IRE) using a clustered electrode in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Materials and Methods: In this single-center prospective cohort study, 13 patients with LAPC (median age, 60 years; range, 48–78 years) underwent clustered electrode IRE between September 2022 and September 2024. Patient characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Endpoints included technical success, procedure-related complications, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Tumors were located in the pancreatic head in four patients (30.8%) and in the body/tail in nine (69.2%). The median tumor size was 2.4 cm (1.5–4.0 cm), and vascular invasion was present in all patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Intraoperative IRE was performed in 11 (84.6%) patients, and 2 (15.4%) patients underwent percutaneous IRE. Gastrointestinal bleeding events as major complications occurred in two patients (15.4%) and, both were successfully controlled by embolization. No 60-day mortality was observed. At a median follow-up of 24.5 months (range, 9.9–33.4 months) after IRE, median OS and PFS from IRE were 20.1 and 14.5 months, respectively. Conclusion IRE using clustered electrodes for LAPC appears to be a feasible therapeutic approach, offering reliable technical success and acceptable safety. Survival outcomes are encouraging; however, larger, controlled studies are required.

Purpose: Limited treatment options exist for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after the failure of taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy. Here, we report the safety and efficacy of ifosfamide and mesna in patients with mCRPC after the failure of taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy (NCT06236789). Materials and Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer who had failed taxane-based chemotherapy and novel hormonal therapy received ifosfamide 2,500 mg/m2 and mesna 1,500 mg/m2 on days 1–3, repeated every 21 days. Safety, objective response rate, disease control rate, reduction in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration by >50% (PSA50) or >90% (PSA90), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Results: A total of 47 patients with mCRPC were included in the study. The median number of lines of treatment was 5 (range, 3 to 7). All patients were previously administered docetaxel and novel hormonal therapies including abiraterone (51.1%) and/or enzalutamide (61.7%). Thirty-eight patients (80.9%) were administered cabazitaxel. The objective response and disease control rates were 21.3% and 80.9%, respectively. PSA50 and PSA90 were achieved in 31.9% and 10.6%, respectively. During a median follow-up duration of 54.3 months, rPFS and OS were 5.0 and 9.0 months, respectively. All the patients experienced treatment-related adverse events of any grades; however, no new safety signs were detected. Genomic biomarker analysis revealed that alterations in the TP53 pathway were associated with inferior rPFS and OS. Conclusion Ifosfamide and mesna showed appreciable efficacy and manageable safety profiles in heavily treated patients with mCRPC.

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend vaccination at least 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation to optimize the immune response despite limited evidence. Our previous study indicated no differences in short-term immune response for the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) according to the vaccination timing. This study aims to investigate the long-term efficacy of PCV13 and clinical factors associated with the respective antibody response. Materials and Methods: Patients with gastric or colorectal cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled and divided into two groups: vaccinated 2 weeks before chemotherapy (arm A) and vaccinated concurrently with chemotherapy (arm B). Serum samples were collected before vaccination and in one month, 3 years, and 5 years. Immune responses were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and multiplex opsonophagocytosis assay. Results: Including 63 patients, both groups showed an initial increase in the geometric mean titers of opsonophagocytic activity and the geometric mean concentrations of serotype-specific IgG levels after one month, followed by a decline at 3 and 5 years, particularly for serotypes 1, 14, 18C, and 19A. Despite the decline, global protection was maintained for 5 years, although global response decreased. The two arms did not show significant differences in immunogenicity nor in factors such as vaccination timing, age, cancer type, or chemotherapy regimen. Conclusion Vaccination timing is not a significant factor for the immunogenicity of PCV13 in cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. Global protection against pneumococcal infection was sustained for > 5 years, and global response remained in over half of patients.

Background: and Purpose Although gastrointestinal (GI) surgery can affect drug efficacy, its impact on oral anticoagulants (OACs) remains unclear. This study investigated the impact of GI surgery on the comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Using a nationwide South Korean claims database, AF patients prescribed OACs between 2015 and 2021 were analyzed. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke, and secondary outcomes were major bleeding, all-cause death, and composite outcome (ischemic stroke, major bleeding, all-cause death). Outcomes were compared by OAC type (DOAC vs. warfarin) and GI surgery status using inverse probability of treatment weighting and a Fine–Gray subdistribution hazard model with time-varying covariates. Results: Among 388,214 AF patients (mean age, 71.9 yr; 42.7% male), 6,907 (1.8%) underwent GI surgery. The effect of GI surgery differed between warfarin and DOACs for ischemic stroke (Pint= 0.018), with increased risk for warfarin (adjusted HR [aHR]: 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–4.62), but not for DOACs (aHR: 0.97 [95% CI 0.77–1.22]) after surgery. Effects of surgery on major bleeding, all-cause death, and composite outcome did not differ. In post–GI surgery setting, DOACs demonstrated lower ischemic stroke risk (aHR: 0.35 [95% CI 0.17–0.72]) and comparable risks for other outcomes. Exploratory analyses by surgery location suggested a more favorable profile of DOACs after upper GI surgery. Conclusions In AF patients, GI surgery significantly increased ischemic stroke risk among warfarin users, but not among DOAC users. DOACs showed generally favorable profiles after GI surgery and may remain a reasonable anticoagulant, with potentially more favorable profile after upper GI surgery.

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.

Objectives: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard minimally invasive treatment for selected patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). This study presents the first nationwide survey of patients with EGC treated with ESD in 2023, conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from participating referral centers across Korea using a standardized case report form covering patient characteristics, tumor features, procedural details, histopathological findings, and clinical outcomes. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to summarize nationwide ESD practice patterns and outcomes. Results: Data from 5460 ESD cases from 5250 patients across 27 institutions were analyzed. The mean age was 67.4 years, with 74.1% males. Multiple synchronous lesions were identified in 3.7%. Most lesions were located in the lower third of the stomach (64.0%), and differentiated-type adenocarcinomas accounted for 87.8%. The en bloc and complete resection rates were 99.2% and 91.4%, respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 80.5%, whereas local non-curative resection (L-NCR) and surgical non-curative resection (S-NCR) were identified in 2.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Additional surgery was performed more frequently in patients with S-NCR than in those with L-NCR (59.3% vs. 24.7%). The bleeding and perforation rates were 3.6% and 0.9%, respectively, and were mostly managed conservatively or endoscopically. The median length of hospitalization was 4.0 days. Conclusions This first nationwide survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current practice of EGC treatment using ESD in Korea, demonstrating high technical success and safety, and establishing a baseline dataset for future longitudinal research.

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.

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.