Rectal cancer, which accounts for approximately 40% of colorectal cancers, remains a major clinical concern. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment have steadily improved rectal cancer outcomes. Considering this, the Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary (KRCM) Committee has aimed to provide clinicians and policymakers with up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to support optimal decision-making, reflecting current evidence, the Korean healthcare context, and patient values and preferences. The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0 were developed through multidisciplinary collaboration with related academic societies, building upon and updating the KRCM Clinical Practice Guidelines version 1.0 (titled “Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of rectal cancer”). These consensus guidelines of the KRCM were established based on a comprehensive literature review, evidence synthesis, with recommendation development guided by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and consideration of applicability in real-world clinical practice under the national health insurance system. Each recommendation has been presented with its strength and level of evidence.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

Objective: The quantitative assessment of spinal cord volume is still in the early stages of development. Recently, normative morphometric values of the cervical spinal cord have been reported. This study aimed to establish normative values for spinal cord morphometry, extending beyond the cervical region to include the thoracic and lumbar spinal cord, and to examine the influence of sex and ethnicity on these measurements. Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 28 young, healthy, East Asian volunteers (14 males and 14 females;mean age, 30.14 ± 4.07 years) who underwent spinal cord MRI using a 3T scanner. The cross-sectional areas (CSAs), anteroposterior (AP) and transverse diameters, and compression ratios of the entire spinal cord were calculated. Additionally, the effects of sex and ethnicity on spinal cord volumetry were evaluated, with the influence of ethnicity assessed by comparing the findings with a Caucasian dataset from the PAM50 study. Results: The CSAs demonstrated two enlargements at the cervical and lumbar levels. The cervical enlargement at C4–5 exhibited an elliptical shape, while the lumbar enlargement at T12 appeared more circular. The CSAs and AP and transverse diameters of the spinal cords in males were significantly larger than that of females (P < 0.001). The spinal cord compression ratios in East Asians were significantly lower than those in Caucasians (P < 0.001). Conclusion This study revealed that the two spinal cord enlargements exhibit different patterns and suggest significant differences in spinal cord morphometric values according to sex and ethnicity.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a viable management strategy for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), following pioneering trials at Kuma Hospital and the Cancer Institute Hospital in Japan. Numerous prospective cohort studies have since validated AS as a management option for low-risk PTMC, leading to its inclusion in thyroid cancer guidelines across various countries. From 2016 to 2020, the Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Active Surveillance on Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma (MAeSTro) enrolled 1,177 patients, providing comprehensive data on PTMC progression, sonographic predictors of progression, quality of life, surgical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when comparing AS to immediate surgery. The second phase of MAeSTro (MAeSTro-EXP) expands AS to low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) tumors larger than 1 cm, driven by the hypothesis that overall risk assessment outweighs absolute tumor size in surgical decision-making. Methods: This protocol aims to address whether limiting AS to tumors smaller than 1 cm may result in unnecessary surgeries for low-risk PTCs detected during their rapid initial growth phase. By expanding the AS criteria to include tumors up to 1.5 cm, while simultaneously refining and standardizing the criteria for risk assessment and disease progression, we aim to minimize overtreatment and maintain rigorous monitoring to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion This study will contribute to optimizing AS guidelines and enhance our understanding of the natural course and appropriate management of low-risk PTCs. Additionally, MAeSTro-EXP involves a multinational collaboration between South Korea and Australia. This cross-country study aims to identify cultural and racial differences in the management of low-risk PTC, thereby enriching the global understanding of AS practices and their applicability across diverse populations.

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.