1.Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Postoperative Quality of Life According to Type of Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
Sung Eun OH ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Ji Yeong AN ; Keun Won RYU ; In CHO ; Sung Geun KIM ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Hoon HUR ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Sun-Hwi HWANG ; Hong Man YOON ; Ki Bum PARK ; Hyoung-Il KIM ; In Gyu KWON ; Han-Kwang YANG ; Byoung-Jo SUH ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Tae-Han KIM ; Oh Kyoung KWON ; Hye Seong AHN ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Ki Young YOON ; Myoung Won SON ; Seong-Ho KONG ; Young-Gil SON ; Geum Jong SONG ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Jung-Min BAE ; Do Joong PARK ; Sol LEE ; Jun-Young YANG ; Kyung Won SEO ; You-Jin JANG ; So Hyun KANG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Joongyub LEE ; Hyuk-Joon LEE ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):382-399
Purpose:
This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
Results:
Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064).
Conclusions
Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.
2.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.
3.Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Postoperative Quality of Life According to Type of Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
Sung Eun OH ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Ji Yeong AN ; Keun Won RYU ; In CHO ; Sung Geun KIM ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Hoon HUR ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Sun-Hwi HWANG ; Hong Man YOON ; Ki Bum PARK ; Hyoung-Il KIM ; In Gyu KWON ; Han-Kwang YANG ; Byoung-Jo SUH ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Tae-Han KIM ; Oh Kyoung KWON ; Hye Seong AHN ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Ki Young YOON ; Myoung Won SON ; Seong-Ho KONG ; Young-Gil SON ; Geum Jong SONG ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Jung-Min BAE ; Do Joong PARK ; Sol LEE ; Jun-Young YANG ; Kyung Won SEO ; You-Jin JANG ; So Hyun KANG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Joongyub LEE ; Hyuk-Joon LEE ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):382-399
Purpose:
This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
Results:
Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064).
Conclusions
Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.
4.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.
5.Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Postoperative Quality of Life According to Type of Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
Sung Eun OH ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Ji Yeong AN ; Keun Won RYU ; In CHO ; Sung Geun KIM ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Hoon HUR ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Sun-Hwi HWANG ; Hong Man YOON ; Ki Bum PARK ; Hyoung-Il KIM ; In Gyu KWON ; Han-Kwang YANG ; Byoung-Jo SUH ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Tae-Han KIM ; Oh Kyoung KWON ; Hye Seong AHN ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Ki Young YOON ; Myoung Won SON ; Seong-Ho KONG ; Young-Gil SON ; Geum Jong SONG ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Jung-Min BAE ; Do Joong PARK ; Sol LEE ; Jun-Young YANG ; Kyung Won SEO ; You-Jin JANG ; So Hyun KANG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Joongyub LEE ; Hyuk-Joon LEE ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):382-399
Purpose:
This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
Results:
Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064).
Conclusions
Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.
6.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.
7.Deep Learning-Based Automatic Classification of Ischemic Stroke Subtype Using Diffusion-Weighted Images
Wi-Sun RYU ; Dawid SCHELLINGERHOUT ; Hoyoun LEE ; Keon-Joo LEE ; Chi Kyung KIM ; Beom Joon KIM ; Jong-Won CHUNG ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Joon-Tae KIM ; Dae-Hyun KIM ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Leonard SUNWOO ; Dongmin KIM ; Sang-Il SUH ; Oh Young BANG ; Hee-Joon BAE ; Dong-Eog KIM
Journal of Stroke 2024;26(2):300-311
Background:
and Purpose Accurate classification of ischemic stroke subtype is important for effective secondary prevention of stroke. We used diffusion-weighted image (DWI) and atrial fibrillation (AF) data to train a deep learning algorithm to classify stroke subtype.
Methods:
Model development was done in 2,988 patients with ischemic stroke from three centers by using U-net for infarct segmentation and EfficientNetV2 for subtype classification. Experienced neurologists (n=5) determined subtypes for external test datasets, while establishing a consensus for clinical trial datasets. Automatically segmented infarcts were fed into the model (DWI-only algorithm). Subsequently, another model was trained, with AF included as a categorical variable (DWI+AF algorithm). These models were tested: (1) internally against the opinion of the labeling experts, (2) against fresh external DWI data, and (3) against clinical trial dataset.
Results:
In the training-and-validation datasets, the mean (±standard deviation) age was 68.0±12.5 (61.1% male). In internal testing, compared with the experts, the DWI-only and the DWI+AF algorithms respectively achieved moderate (65.3%) and near-strong (79.1%) agreement. In external testing, both algorithms again showed good agreements (59.3%–60.7% and 73.7%–74.0%, respectively). In the clinical trial dataset, compared with the expert consensus, percentage agreements and Cohen’s kappa were respectively 58.1% and 0.34 for the DWI-only vs. 72.9% and 0.57 for the DWI+AF algorithms. The corresponding values between experts were comparable (76.0% and 0.61) to the DWI+AF algorithm.
Conclusion
Our model trained on a large dataset of DWI (both with or without AF information) was able to classify ischemic stroke subtypes comparable to a consensus of stroke experts.
8.Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Red Ginseng Oil (RXGIN) in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Dongho SHIN ; Byung Il YOON ; Seokhwan BANG ; Woong Jin BAE ; U-Syn HA ; Soomin KIM ; Junjie PIAO ; Jong Han KIM ; Gi-Bang KOO ; Kyung-Hwa JEON ; Tae Hyung KIM ; Sae Woong KIM
The World Journal of Men's Health 2024;42(1):229-236
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of red ginseng oil (RXGIN) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
Materials and Methods:
Men aged between 40 and 75 years with a total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 8 to 19 points were recruited from April 2020 to December 2020. Subjects were randomly assigned to either the RXGIN group or the control group in a 1:1 ratio and received either RXGIN or placebo daily for 12 weeks. For the primary outcome, changes in IPSS scores at 6 and 12 weeks from baseline were analyzed. The secondary outcomes were changes in International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), maximum urinary flow rate, and post-void residual volume at weeks 6 and 12 compared to baseline. Urine analysis and blood tests were additionally performed for safety assessment.
Results:
A total of 88 subjects (RXGIN group, 46; control group, 42) completed the study. The total IPSS and IPSS subscores (residual urine sensation, frequency, intermittency, urgency, weak stream, straining, nocturia, and quality of life) were significantly improved in the RXGIN group compared to the control group at weeks 6 and 12. Total IIEF and sexual desire were significantly improved in the RXGIN group at week 6 and week 12, respectively, but there were no significant changes in the level of serum testosterone or dihydrotestosterone. The serum prostate-specific antigen showed significant decrease at weeks 12. No serious adverse events leading to discontinuation of the study drug were observed in the RXGIN group.
Conclusions
Red ginseng oil (RXGIN) appears to be safe and effective in improving lower urinary tract symptoms in men and may also improve some aspects of sexual function.
9.Erratum: Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidencebased, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(2):365-373
10.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2022: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach
Tae-Han KIM ; In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Baek-Hui KIM ; Bang Wool EOM ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chang In CHOI ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chung sik GONG ; Dong Jin KIM ; Arthur Eung-Hyuck CHO ; Eun Jeong GONG ; Geum Jong SONG ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hye Seong AHN ; Hyun LIM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Kyoung Doo SONG ; Minkyu JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Sang-Yong SON ; Shin-Hoo PARK ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Woong Sub KOOM ; Yeseob JEE ; Yoo Min KIM ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Young Suk PARK ; Hye Sook HAN ; Su Youn NAM ; Seong-Ho KONG ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2023;23(1):3-106
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail