Background: Precision oncology is advancing, increasing the demand for comprehensive, non-invasive genomic profiling tools. Liquid biopsy using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) enables real-time molecular profiling, treatment monitoring, and early detection of resistance variants. We developed the PAN100 panel (Dxome), a hybridization capture panel targeting 101 genes, as a pan-cancer genotyping assay to detect clinically actionable variants across various cancer types. This study presents the first comprehensive validation of the PAN100 panel including both analytical and clinical performance across eight cancer types using reference materials and matched tissue samples. Methods: For analytical validation, we assessed accuracy, limit of detection (LoD), and precision using Seraseq ctDNA v2 Reference Materials (SeraCare, Milford, MA, USA). Clinical validation was performed using plasma samples from 27 patients with eight types of cancer and 17 matched tumor samples. Positive percent agreement (PPA) between ctDNA and tissue next-generation sequencing (NGS) results was assessed using TruSight Oncology 500 and TruSight Tumor 170 assays. The limit of blank (LoB) was evaluated in 34 healthy individuals. Results: The PAN100 panel demonstrated high precision and linearity (LoD, 0.3%; 95.0% confidence interval, 0.29–0.35) variant allele frequency. The PPA between ctDNA and tissue NGS was 73.1% for single-nucleotide variants, 80.0% for insertions/deletions, and 74.2% overall. The LoB was 0.00001%. Conclusions The PAN100 panel is a robust tool for detecting clinically significant variants with high concordance with tissue NGS. Its sensitivity for low-frequency variants enables real-time treatment adaptation, supporting precision oncology. Its comprehensive design is particularly valuable for challenging diagnoses and clonal evolution monitoring.

Background: Copy number variations (CNVs) play an important role in human genetic disorders. Detection of exon-level CNVs is crucial for accurate clinical diagnosis. The CytoScan XON Array, a high-resolution microarray, was recently developed to detect exonic CNVs of various genes. Methods: We evaluated the clinical performance of the CytoScan XON Array using 59 patient samples with previously identified CNVs, confirmed via methods including multiple ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), gene-dose PCR, and mRNA assay. Concordance between CytoScan XON and orthogonal methods was evaluated in target regions, and diagnostic utility was compared with that of genome sequencing (GS)-based CNV calling tools through analysis of false-positive CNVs in non-target genomic regions. Results: For target regions, the CytoScan XON Array achieved concordance rates of 89.8% and 92.5% at the exon and gene levels, respectively, for all CNV calls. Concordance was higher for multi-exon CNVs (100%) than that for single-exon CNVs (82.6%, P = 0.03). For non-target regions, false-positive CNV calls were reduced to fewer than 0.01 per gene per person through filtering strategies. The array exhibited false-positive detection rates within dosage-sensitive genes comparable with those of GS-based tools. Conclusions The CytoScan XON Array, a reliable tool for detecting exon-level CNVs in target regions, can serve as a complementary approach to GS-based CNV calling tools for genome-wide CNV screening with high resolution. However, its performance for single-exon CNVs requires further optimization. Cross-validation with GS-based CNV calling tools is recommended to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Osteoid osteoma accounts for approximately 10% of all benign bone tumors, but only approximately 4% of cases occur in the foot and ankle area. Periarticular osteoid osteoma frequently manifests with nonspecific clinical symptoms that mimic other conditions, potentially leading clinicians down a diagnostic side path and resulting in delayed or missed diagnoses compared to extra-articular osteoid osteoma. Although plain radiographs may show nonspecific findings, magnetic resonance imaging can detect bone marrow edema and surrounding soft tissue changes. Computed tomography is the most accurate modality for diagnosis. This paper reports the case of a 26-year-old female diagnosed with periarticular osteoid osteoma of the calcaneus and was treated with arthroscopic localized curettage at the author’s institution.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hallux valgus correction has become increasingly popular over the past decade as an alternative to traditional open osteotomy techniques. Following the limitations of first- and second-generation percutaneous techniques, third-generation MIS, characterized by percutaneous osteotomy with a Shannon burr and stable screw fixation, has shown improved reproducibility and clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the current concepts of third-generation and later MIS techniques for hallux valgus correction, focusing on the surgical principles, technical considerations, fixation strategies, and postoperative management. In addition, the clinical and radiographic outcomes of MIS are compared with conventional open osteotomies. The available evidence consistently shows that MIS provides comparable deformity correction, functional improvement, complication rates, and recurrence rates to those of open procedures, while offering advantages such as reduced early postoperative pain, smaller incisions, and faster recovery. Recent studies support expanding MIS indications to include severe hallux valgus deformities that can provide satisfactory correction and acceptable complication profiles when appropriate techniques and fixation methods are used. Despite the ongoing debates regarding the optimal osteotomy type, fixation strategy, and proximal correction in severe deformities, MIS has emerged as a safe and effective surgical option across a broad spectrum of hallux valgus severity. Continued refinement of the surgical techniques, broader application across a wide range of hallux valgus etiologies, and long-term outcome data will further define the role of MIS in hallux valgus surgery.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic and relapsing gastrointestinal disorder characterized by the reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus, leading to troublesome symptoms and/or complications. Since the publication of the 2020 Seoul Consensus on GERD, significant new evidence has emerged, particularly regarding acid-suppressive therapies and diagnostic approaches. This 2025 focused update aims to refine GERD management strategies by incorporating the latest evidence on acid suppressive therapies and regional considerations in Asian populations. This study builds on the 2020 Seoul Consensus by integrating systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and expert consensuses to offer updated recommendations for the definition and medical treatment of GERD. These guidelines incorporate recent advances in acid-suppressive therapies, particularly potassium-competitive acid blockers, and adopt updated diagnostic frameworks in accordance with the Lyon Consensus 2.0. Key clinical questions were identified and structured using the following format: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome. The resulting recommendations address the initial treatment, long-term maintenance strategies, and role of personalized therapy based on disease severity, such as the grade of reflux esophagitis. Six key statements are presented: updated definition and classification of GERD (Statement 1); initial and long-term treatment strategies tailored to GERD phenotypes, such as non-erosive reflux disease, mild erosive esophagitis, and severe erosive esophagitis (Statements 2-5); and dose optimization strategies for long-term safety (Statement 6). These guidelines aim to support gastroenterologists and general healthcare providers in making individualized evidence-based decisions for GERD management.

Korea’s healthcare system is at a critical juncture as rapid population aging, rising chronic disease burdens, and fragmented care expose the limits of a hospital-centered, fee-for-service model. Although policy discussions have long emphasized strengthening primary care and introducing a “family doctor” system, past reforms have focused mainly on expanding services or redefining professional roles, without establishing clear accountability, care continuity, or aligned payment mechanisms. Consequently, primary care remains weak and responsibility for comprehensive patient management is diffuse. This article argues that meaningful reform requires redefining the primary physician as an accountable manager of longitudinal, coordinated care within an integrated delivery and payment framework. Drawing on experiences from the United States, the United Kingdom, and several European countries, it identifies common features of successful primary care–oriented systems, including patient registration, team-based care, risk-adjusted payment, and explicit outcome accountability. Based on these insights, the authors propose a Korean primary physician model tailored to solo and small-group practices while fostering regional collaboration. Core elements include voluntary patient registration, multidisciplinary primary care teams, risk-stratified care management, regional care networks, and a mixed payment model combining per-member-per-month payments, shared savings, and performance-based incentives. The article emphasizes phased pilot testing focused on operational feasibility. Ultimately, transitioning to a primary care–centered system is presented as a strategic necessity for sustainability and improved care continuity.

South Korea’s current healthcare system stands at a critical crossroads that will determine whether it can progress in a better direction over the next decade. Behind the relatively stable level of population health that has been maintained until now, it has become clear that the deterioration of patient experiences, the risk of collapse in critical emergency medical services, the burnout of healthcare providers, and the crisis in the sustainability of healthcare finances have all accumulated simultaneously. This crisis can no longer be overcome by partial fixes or short-term measures alone. The answer to what needs to change first must begin with a reaffirmation of what the healthcare system should aim for. Ultimately, what needs to be changed now is not an individual policy, but the criteria and priorities through which we view healthcare. The focus must shift from what to provide more of, to questioning what holds greater social value. If such a shift does not begin now, in ten years we won’t face a better healthcare system, but care enmeshed in a deeper crisis. Now is precisely the time to fundamentally define the direction of the healthcare system.

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.

Objective: Evidence remains limited regarding whether Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) or modified RECIST (mRECIST) more reliably assesses treatment response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev). This study aimed to evaluate response patterns based on RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, analyze inter-reader agreement, and assess their prognostic value for overall survival (OS) in patients with HCC receiving first-line Atezo/Bev. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included patients with HCC treated with first-line Atezo/Bev between June 2020 and December 2022 at a tertiary center. Patients with at least one hypervascular hepatic target lesion were eligible. Two radiologists independently assessed treatment responses using RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa coefficient. Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed, with radiologic response and progression treated as time-varying covariates. Prognostic discrimination was evaluated using Harrell’s concordance index (C-index). Results: A total of 207 patients were included (171 men; median age, 63 years; median follow-up, 10.7 months [range, 0.8– 46.4 months]; median OS, 10.7 months [95% confidence interval, 9.2–12.8 months]). mRECIST identified more responders than RECIST 1.1 (54.6% vs. 16.9%). RECIST 1.1 demonstrated excellent inter-reader agreement, whereas mRECIST showed substantial agreement (weighted kappa, 0.89 vs. 0.79). A significantly higher rate of dissociated responses was observed with mRECIST than with RECIST 1.1 (14.0% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.001). Both RECIST 1.1- and mRECIST-based responses and progression were independently associated with OS. Models incorporating RECIST 1.1 demonstrated slightly higher C-index values than those incorporating mRECIST (RECIST 1.1: 0.68 for response and 0.75 for progression; mRECIST: 0.65 and 0.70, respectively). Conclusion RECIST 1.1 is more reproducible and prognostically valuable for guiding treatment decisions in patients with HCC receiving first-line Atezo/Bev. However, this does not invalidate the use of mRECIST as a biological tumor response marker.