Purpose: While the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been established in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and triple-negative breast cancers, its effectiveness in achieving pathological complete response (pCR) and optimal patient selection in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers remain less clearly defined. This study aimed to identify immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based predictors of pCR and to develop a scoring model for ER-strong positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. Methods: Data from a prospective cohort were retrospectively analyzed. We included 522 patients with ER-strong positive/HER2-negative tumors who received NAC and surgery between 2008 and 2021. IHC markers including progesterone receptor (PR), Ki-67, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), and p53 were evaluated to identify predictors of pCR. Independent predictors of pCR from multivariate logistic regression were used to develop a weighted 4-point model. Model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The prognostic impact of pCR was evaluated using KaplanMeier and Cox regression analyses. Results: Independent predictors of pCR included PR-negative status, positivity for basallike markers (EGFR or CK5/6), and Ki-67 ≥ 50%. The scoring model demonstrated good discrimination for pCR (area under the curve = 0.754). pCR rates increased stepwise, with scores of 4.9% (low), 10.7% (intermediate), and 36.2% (high). In the high-score group, pCR was significantly associated with improved disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; p = 0.023) and distant metastasis-free survival (HR, 0.11; p = 0.035), whereas no significant survival differences according to pCR status were observed in the low and intermediate score groups. Conclusion This IHC-based model predicts pCR and helps identify subgroups in which pCR is associated with meaningful survival benefit following NAC in ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancers. High-scoring patients may benefit from NAC, while patients with low- or intermediatescores may be better managed with surgery and endocrine therapy. This model may support personalized treatment decisions regarding NAC.

Purpose: Lobular carcinoma In Situ (LCIS) is a noninvasive lesion associated with an increased risk of invasive cancer. Since its removal from the tumor, node, metastasis classification in the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines, the clinical management of LCIS has shifted from surgery to surveillance. However, studies focusing on the risk and associated factors for invasive cancer development in pure LCIS without ductal carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) or invasive cancer remain limited. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 106 patients diagnosed with pure LCIS between 2008 and 2018. This study evaluated the effect of tamoxifen use and histologic type on the development of invasive cancer. Results: All 106 patients underwent surgery, and nine (8.5%) developed invasive cancer over a median follow-up of 67.5 months. The incidence of invasive cancer was lower in the tamoxifen group (6.3%, n = 4) than in the non-tamoxifen group (11.9%, n = 5), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.266). Pleomorphic LCIS had a significantly higher incidence of invasive cancer (30.0%, n = 3) than classic LCIS (6.3%, n = 6) (p = 0.045).Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of invasive cancer according to tamoxifen use (hazard ratio [HR], 2.031; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.544–7.579; p = 0.292). However, pleomorphic LCIS showed a trend toward an increased risk of invasive cancer compared to classic LCIS (HR, 3.856; 95% CI, 0.922–16.126; p = 0.064). Conclusion Postoperative tamoxifen did not significantly lower invasive cancer development in patients with pure LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS may carry a higher risk than classic LCIS. These findings require tailored follow-up and treatment strategies based on the histologic subtype of LCIS.

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.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Purpose: Oral sulfate tablets are abundantly used for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, their efficiency and safety for bowel preparation before colorectal surgery remain ill-defined. Herein, we aimed to compare the surgical site infection rates and efficiency between oral sulfate tablets and sodium picosulfate. Methods: We designed a prospective, randomized, phase 2 clinical trial. Patients with colorectal cancer aged 19–75 years who underwent elective bowel resection and anastomosis by minimally invasive surgery were administered oral sulfate tablets or sodium picosulfate. Eighty-three cases were analyzed from October 2020 to December 2021. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery was considered the primary endpoint. Postoperative morbidities, the degree of bowel cleansing, and tolerability were the secondary endpoints. Results: Surgical site infection was detected in 1 patient (2.5%) in the oral sulfate tablet group and 2 patients (4.7%) in the sodium picosulfate group, indicating no significant difference between the 2 groups. Postoperative morbidity and the degree of bowel cleansing bore no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, none of the investigated tolerability criteria, namely bloating, pain, nausea, vomiting, and discomfort, differed significantly between the 2 groups. The patients’ willingness to reuse the drug was also not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusion Although we could not establish the noninferiority of oral sulfate tablets to sodium picosulfate, we found no evidence suggesting that oral sulfate tablets are less safe or tolerable than sodium picosulfate in preoperative bowel preparation.

Background: and Purpose Mutations in the ganglioside-induced differentiation-associated protein 1 gene (GDAP1) are known to cause Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). These mutations are very rare in most countries, but not in certain Mediterranean countries. The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical and neuroimaging characteristics of Korean CMT patients with GDAP1 mutations. Methods: Gene sequencing was applied to 1,143 families in whom CMT had been diagnosed from 2005 to 2020. PMP22 duplication was found in 344 families, and whole-exome sequencing was performed in 699 patients. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were obtained using either a 1.5-T or 3.0-T MRI system. Results: We found ten patients from eight families with GDAP1 mutations: five with autosomal dominant (AD) CMT type 2K (three families with p.R120W and two families with p.Q218E) and three with autosomal recessive (AR) intermediate CMT type A (two families with homozygous p.H256R and one family with p.P111H and p.V219G mutations). The frequency was about 1.0% exclusive of the PMP22 duplication, which is similar to that in other Asian countries. There were clinical differences among AD GDAP1 patients according to mutation sites. Surprisingly, fat infiltrations evident in lower-limb MRI differed between AD and AR patients. The posterior-compartment muscles in the calf were affected early and predominantly in AD patients, whereas AR patients showed fat infiltration predominantly in the anterolateral-compartment muscles. Conclusions This is the first cohort report on Korean patients with GDAP1 mutations. The patients with AD and AR inheritance routes exhibited different clinical and neuroimaging features in the lower extremities. We believe that these results will help to expand the knowledge of the clinical, genetic, and neuroimaging features of CMT.

Background: Data on severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) delta variant virulence are insufficient. We retrospectively compared the clinical features of adult coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients without risk factors for severe COVID-19 who entered residential treatment centers (RTCs) before and after the delta variant outbreak. Methods: We collected medical information from two RTCs in South Korea. On the basis of nationwide delta variant surveillance, we divided the patients into two groups: 1) the delta-minor group (diagnosed from December 2020–June 2021, detection rate < 10%) and 2) the delta-dominant group (diagnosed during August 2021, detection rate > 90%). After propensity-score matching, the incidences of pneumonia, hospital transfer and need for supplemental oxygen were compared between the groups. In addition, risk factors for hospital transfer were analysed. Results: A total of 1,915 patients were included. The incidence of pneumonia (14.6% vs.9.2%, P = 0.009), all-cause hospital transfer (10.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.020) and COVID-19-related hospital transfer (7.5% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.081) were higher in the delta-dominant group than those in the delta-minor group. In the multivariate analysis, the delta-dominant group was an independent risk factor for all-cause (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–3.13; P = 0.011) and COVID-19-related hospital transfer (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.04–3.32; P = 0.036). Conclusion Hospitalization rates were increased in the adult COVID-19 patients during the delta variant nationwide outbreak. Our results showed that the delta variant may be more virulent than previous lineages.