1.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
3.Eosinophilic Cholangitis Diagnosed in a Patient with Abnormal Liver Enzymes: A Case Report
Sung Hoon CHANG ; Jun Yeol KIM ; Yong Soo SONG ; Tae Seung LEE ; Jin Ho CHOI ; Woo Hyun PAIK ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Ji Kon RYU ; In Rae CHO
Korean Journal of Pancreas and Biliary Tract 2025;30(1):19-25
It is difficult to determine a cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. Eosinophilic cholangitis, a rare benign condition, may be one cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. It can be evaluated using various methods of histopathology, radiographs, endoscopy, and hematologic findings. Treatment generally involves steroid therapy which can lead to improvement. This case report will discuss eosinophilic cholangitis, emphasizing that while it can easily be overlooked but should be considered in differential diagnoses.
4.Home High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients with Chronic Respiratory Failure: A Literature Review and Suggestions for Clinical Practice
Youjin CHANG ; Moon Seong BAEK ; Sei Won KIM ; Su Hwan LEE ; Jung Soo KIM ; So Young PARK ; Jin Woo KIM ; Jae Hwa CHO ; Sunghoon PARK
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2025;88(2):264-277
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a noninvasive respiratory support system that delivers air that is heated at 31°C−38°C, humidified 100%, and oxygen-enriched at a constant high flow rate of 15−60 L/min. Because of its numerous physiological benefits, convenience, and minimal side effects, HFNC has been increasingly used over the past decade in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, yet the clinical benefits of long-term HFNC remain uncertain. Several studies have suggested its potential use as an alternative home oxygen therapy for patients with chronic stable lung diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease, and bronchiectasis. The use of long-term home HFNC in patients with chronic respiratory failure is an emerging area with promising potential. Despite limited clinical research, this review aims to describe the physiology of HFNC use and summarize the current evidence on its long-term application, to provide healthcare providers with insights and perspectives on the potential role of long-term home HFNC.
5.Differences in Treatment Outcomes Depending on the Adjuvant Treatment Modality in Craniopharyngioma
Byung Min LEE ; Jaeho CHO ; Dong-Seok KIM ; Jong Hee CHANG ; Seok-Gu KANG ; Eui-Hyun KIM ; Ju Hyung MOON ; Sung Soo AHN ; Yae Won PARK ; Chang-Ok SUH ; Hong In YOON
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(3):141-150
Purpose:
Adjuvant treatment for craniopharyngioma after surgery is controversial. Adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can increase the risk of long-term sequelae. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used to reduce treatment-related toxicity.In this study, we compared the treatment outcomes and toxicities of adjuvant therapies for craniopharyngioma.
Materials and Methods:
We analyzed patients who underwent craniopharyngioma tumor removal between 2000 and 2017. Of the 153 patients, 27 and 20 received adjuvant fractionated EBRT and SRS, respectively. We compared the local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival between groups that received adjuvant fractionated EBRT, SRS, and surveillance.
Results:
The median follow-up period was 77.7 months. For SRS and surveillance, the 10-year LC was 57.2% and 57.4%, respectively. No local progression was observed after adjuvant fractionated EBRT. One patient in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT group died owing to glioma 94 months after receiving radiotherapy (10-year PFS: 80%). The 10-year PFS was 43.6% and 50.7% in the SRS and surveillance groups, respectively. The treatment outcomes significantly differed according to adjuvant treatment in nongross total resection (GTR) patients. Additional treatment-related toxicity was comparable in the adjuvant fractionated EBRT and other groups.
Conclusion
Adjuvant fractionated EBRT could be effective in controlling local failure, especially in patients with non-GTR, while maintaining acceptable treatment-related toxicity.
6.Erratum: Correction of Text in the Article “The Long-term Outcomes and Risk Factors of Complications After Fontan Surgery: From the Korean Fontan Registry (KFR)”
Sang-Yun LEE ; Soo-Jin KIM ; Chang-Ha LEE ; Chun Soo PARK ; Eun Seok CHOI ; Hoon KO ; Hyo Soon AN ; I Seok KANG ; Ja Kyoung YOON ; Jae Suk BAEK ; Jae Young LEE ; Jinyoung SONG ; Joowon LEE ; June HUH ; Kyung-Jin AHN ; Se Yong JUNG ; Seul Gi CHA ; Yeo Hyang KIM ; Youngseok LEE ; Sanghoon CHO
Korean Circulation Journal 2025;55(3):256-257
7.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
8.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail