Purpose: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of the Trauma-nursing Education and Skill Support (TESS) program based on the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation model). The program was designed to enhance trauma nurses’ clinical competencies, including trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability, through the integration of theoretical education and simulation-based practice. Methods: A quasi-experimental study using a non-equivalent control group pretest–posttest design was conducted. Participants included 108 trauma nurses from regional trauma centers, military trauma centers, and emergency care facilities, who were assigned to an experimental group (n=52) or a control group (n=56). The TESS program consisted of a 2-day, 14-hour blended-learning course that included eight lecture sessions and four simulation-based practice stations. Data were collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at 6 months using validated instruments measuring trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used for data analysis. Results: The experimental group demonstrated significant improvements in trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability compared with baseline (all p<.001). These improvements were sustained at 6 months, although trauma-related knowledge scores showed a slight decline compared with immediate posttest levels. Between-group analyses confirmed significant group-by-time interaction effects for all outcomes: trauma-related knowledge (η2=0.12, p<.001), self-efficacy (η2=0.09, p=.002), and problem-solving ability (η2=0.08, p=.003). Conclusion The TESS program effectively enhanced trauma nurses’ trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability, with effects sustained for up to 6 months. Incorporating blended learning and simulation-based training into standardized trauma nursing education may strengthen clinical competencies and ultimately contribute to improved patient outcomes.

Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

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.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation testing is crucial for the administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to treat non–small cell lung cancer. In addition to traditional tissue-based tests, liquid biopsies using plasma are increasingly utilized, particularly for detecting T790M mutations. This study compared tissue- and plasma-based EGFR testing methods. Methods: A total of 248 patients were tested for EGFR mutations using tissue and plasma samples from 2018 to 2023 at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital. Tissue tests were performed using PANAmutyper, and plasma tests were performed using the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2. Results: All 248 patients underwent tissue-based EGFR testing, and 245 (98.8%) showed positive results. Of the 408 plasma tests, 237 (58.1%) were positive. For the T790M mutation, tissue biopsies were performed 87 times in 69 patients, and 30 positive cases (38.6%) were detected. Plasma testing for the T790M mutation was conducted 333 times in 207 patients, yielding 62 positive results (18.6%). Of these, 57 (27.5%) were confirmed to have the mutation via plasma testing. Combined tissue and plasma tests for the T790M mutation were positive in nine patients (13.4%), while 17 (25.4%) were positive in tissue only and 12 (17.9%) in plasma only. This mutation was not detected in 28 patients (43.3%). Conclusions Although the tissue- and plasma-based tests showed a sensitivity of 37.3% and 32.8%, respectively, combined testing increased the detection rate to 56.7%. Thus, neither test demonstrated superiority, rather, they were complementary.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation testing is crucial for the administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to treat non–small cell lung cancer. In addition to traditional tissue-based tests, liquid biopsies using plasma are increasingly utilized, particularly for detecting T790M mutations. This study compared tissue- and plasma-based EGFR testing methods. Methods: A total of 248 patients were tested for EGFR mutations using tissue and plasma samples from 2018 to 2023 at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital. Tissue tests were performed using PANAmutyper, and plasma tests were performed using the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2. Results: All 248 patients underwent tissue-based EGFR testing, and 245 (98.8%) showed positive results. Of the 408 plasma tests, 237 (58.1%) were positive. For the T790M mutation, tissue biopsies were performed 87 times in 69 patients, and 30 positive cases (38.6%) were detected. Plasma testing for the T790M mutation was conducted 333 times in 207 patients, yielding 62 positive results (18.6%). Of these, 57 (27.5%) were confirmed to have the mutation via plasma testing. Combined tissue and plasma tests for the T790M mutation were positive in nine patients (13.4%), while 17 (25.4%) were positive in tissue only and 12 (17.9%) in plasma only. This mutation was not detected in 28 patients (43.3%). Conclusions Although the tissue- and plasma-based tests showed a sensitivity of 37.3% and 32.8%, respectively, combined testing increased the detection rate to 56.7%. Thus, neither test demonstrated superiority, rather, they were complementary.

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.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation testing is crucial for the administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to treat non–small cell lung cancer. In addition to traditional tissue-based tests, liquid biopsies using plasma are increasingly utilized, particularly for detecting T790M mutations. This study compared tissue- and plasma-based EGFR testing methods. Methods: A total of 248 patients were tested for EGFR mutations using tissue and plasma samples from 2018 to 2023 at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital. Tissue tests were performed using PANAmutyper, and plasma tests were performed using the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2. Results: All 248 patients underwent tissue-based EGFR testing, and 245 (98.8%) showed positive results. Of the 408 plasma tests, 237 (58.1%) were positive. For the T790M mutation, tissue biopsies were performed 87 times in 69 patients, and 30 positive cases (38.6%) were detected. Plasma testing for the T790M mutation was conducted 333 times in 207 patients, yielding 62 positive results (18.6%). Of these, 57 (27.5%) were confirmed to have the mutation via plasma testing. Combined tissue and plasma tests for the T790M mutation were positive in nine patients (13.4%), while 17 (25.4%) were positive in tissue only and 12 (17.9%) in plasma only. This mutation was not detected in 28 patients (43.3%). Conclusions Although the tissue- and plasma-based tests showed a sensitivity of 37.3% and 32.8%, respectively, combined testing increased the detection rate to 56.7%. Thus, neither test demonstrated superiority, rather, they were complementary.