1.Does the outcome of acupuncture differ according to the location of sham needling points in acupuncture trials for migraine? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Boram LEE ; Chan-Young KWON ; Hye Won LEE ; Arya NIELSEN ; L Susan WIELAND ; Tae-Hun KIM ; Stephen BIRCH ; Terje ALRAEK ; Myeong Soo LEE
Frontiers of Medicine 2025;19(1):53-63
Various acupuncture clinical trials have been conducted on migraine; however, the conclusions remain controversial especially when acupuncture was compared with sham acupuncture. Sham acupuncture is sometimes performed at the same acupuncture points used for verum acupuncture despite the evidence on acupuncture point specificity. Four databases were searched for sham acupuncture or waiting list-controlled acupuncture trials for migraine on December 25, 2023. Sham acupuncture was classified according to the needling points: sham acupuncture therapy at verum points (SATV) or at sham points (SATS). Network meta-analysis was performed based on the frequentist framework for headache pain intensity and response rate. A total of 18 studies involving 1936 participants were analyzed. Headache pain intensity and response rate were significantly improved in verum acupuncture compared with SATS. However, there was no significant difference between SATV and verum acupuncture. When comparing SATS and SATV, there was no significant difference in headache pain intensity and response rate; however, the results were in favor of SATV. The effect of the risk of bias on the certainty of evidence between verum and sham acupunctures was judged to be generally low. SATV should not be misused as a placebo control to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture.
Humans
;
Migraine Disorders/therapy*
;
Acupuncture Therapy/methods*
;
Acupuncture Points
;
Treatment Outcome
;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
2.Impact of HER2-Low Status on Pathologic Complete Response and Survival Outcome Among Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Young Joo LEE ; Tae-Kyung YOO ; Sae Byul LEE ; Il Yong CHUNG ; Hee Jeong KIM ; Beom Seok KO ; Jong Won LEE ; Byung Ho SON ; Sei Hyun AHN ; Hyehyun JEONG ; Jae Ho JUNG ; Jin-Hee AHN ; Kyung Hae JUNG ; Sung-Bae KIM ; Hee Jin LEE ; Gyungyub GONG ; Jisun KIM
Journal of Breast Cancer 2025;28(1):11-22
Purpose:
This study analyzed the pathological complete response (pCR) rates, long-term outcomes, and biological features of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-zero, HER2-low, and HER2-positive breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment.
Methods:
This single-center study included 1,667 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were categorized by HER2 status, and their clinicopathological characteristics, chemotherapy responses, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were analyzed.
Results:
Patients with HER2-low tumors were more likely to be older (p = 0.081), have a lower histological grade (p < 0.001), and have hormone receptor (HorR)-positive tumors (p < 0.001). The HER2-positive group exhibited the highest pCR rate (23.3%), followed by the HER2-zero (15.5%) and HER2-low (10.9%) groups. However, the pCR rate did not differ between HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors in the HorR-positive or HorR-negative subgroups.The 5-year RFS rates increased in the following order: HER2-low, HER2-positive, and HER2-zero (80.0%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, respectively) (log-rank test p = 0.017). A significant survival difference between patients with HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors was only identified in HorR-negative tumors (5-year RFS for HER2-low, 74.5% vs. HER2-zero, 66.0%; log-rank test p-value = 0.04). Multivariate survival analysis revealed that achieving a pCR was the most significant factor associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 4.279; p < 0.001).Compared with HER2-zero, the HRs for HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were 0.787 (p = 0.042) and 0.728 (p = 0.005), respectively. After excluding patients who received HER2-targeted therapy, patients with HER2-low tumors exhibited better RFS than those with HER2-zero (HR 0.784, p = 0.04), whereas those with HER2-positive tumors exhibited no significant difference compared with those with HER2-low tumors (HR, 0.975; p = 0.953).
Conclusion
Patients with HER2-low tumors had no significant difference in pCR rate compared to HER2-zero but showed better survival, especially in HorR-negative tumors.Further investigation into biological differences is warranted.
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.Harnessing Institutionally Developed Clinical Targeted Sequencing to Improve Patient Survival in Breast Cancer: A Seven-Year Experience
Jiwon KOH ; Jinyong KIM ; Go-Un WOO ; Hanbaek YI ; So Yean KWON ; Jeongmin SEO ; Jeong Mo BAE ; Jung Ho KIM ; Jae Kyung WON ; Han Suk RYU ; Yoon Kyung JEON ; Dae-Won LEE ; Miso KIM ; Tae-Yong KIM ; Kyung-Hun LEE ; Tae-You KIM ; Jee-Soo LEE ; Moon-Woo SEONG ; Sheehyun KIM ; Sungyoung LEE ; Hongseok YUN ; Myung Geun SONG ; Jaeyong CHOI ; Jong-Il KIM ; Seock-Ah IM
Cancer Research and Treatment 2025;57(2):443-456
Purpose:
Considering the high disease burden and unique features of Asian patients with breast cancer (BC), it is essential to have a comprehensive view of genetic characteristics in this population. An institutional targeted sequencing platform was developed through the Korea Research-Driven Hospitals project and was incorporated into clinical practice. This study explores the use of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and its outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic BC in the real world.
Materials and Methods:
We reviewed the results of NGS tests administered to BC patients using a customized sequencing platform—FiRST Cancer Panel (FCP)—over 7 years. We systematically described clinical translation of FCP for precise diagnostics, personalized therapeutic strategies, and unraveling disease pathogenesis.
Results:
NGS tests were conducted on 548 samples from 522 patients with BC. Ninety-seven point six percentage of tested samples harbored at least one pathogenic alteration. The common alterations included mutations in TP53 (56.2%), PIK3CA (31.2%), GATA3 (13.8%), BRCA2 (10.2%), and amplifications of CCND1 (10.8%), FGF19 (10.0%), and ERBB2 (9.5%). NGS analysis of ERBB2 amplification correlated well with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. RNA panel analyses found potentially actionable and prognostic fusion genes. FCP effectively screened for potentially germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutation. Ten point three percent of BC patients received matched therapy guided by NGS, resulting in a significant overall survival advantage (p=0.022), especially for metastatic BCs.
Conclusion
Clinical NGS provided multifaceted benefits, deepening our understanding of the disease, improving diagnostic precision, and paving the way for targeted therapies. The concrete advantages of FCP highlight the importance of multi-gene testing for BC, especially for metastatic conditions.
6.The Survival and Financial Benefit of Investigator-Initiated Trials Conducted by Korean Cancer Study Group
Bum Jun KIM ; Chi Hoon MAENG ; Bhumsuk KEAM ; Young-Hyuck IM ; Jungsil RO ; Kyung Hae JUNG ; Seock-Ah IM ; Tae Won KIM ; Jae Lyun LEE ; Dae Seog HEO ; Sang-We KIM ; Keunchil PARK ; Myung-Ju AHN ; Byoung Chul CHO ; Hoon-Kyo KIM ; Yoon-Koo KANG ; Jae Yong CHO ; Hwan Jung YUN ; Byung-Ho NAM ; Dae Young ZANG
Cancer Research and Treatment 2025;57(1):39-46
Purpose:
The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients.
Materials and Methods:
We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided.
Results:
From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient.
Conclusion
Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.
7.Locoregional Recurrence in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Breast: A Retrospective, Multicenter Study (KROG 22-14)
Sang Min LEE ; Bum-Sup JANG ; Won PARK ; Yong Bae KIM ; Jin Ho SONG ; Jin Hee KIM ; Tae Hyun KIM ; In Ah KIM ; Jong Hoon LEE ; Sung-Ja AHN ; Kyubo KIM ; Ah Ram CHANG ; Jeanny KWON ; Hae Jin PARK ; Kyung Hwan SHIN
Cancer Research and Treatment 2025;57(1):150-158
Purpose:
This study aims to evaluate the treatment approaches and locoregional patterns for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) in the breast, which is an uncommon malignant tumor with limited clinical data.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 93 patients diagnosed with primary ACC in the breast between 1992 and 2022 were collected from multi-institutions. All patients underwent surgical resection, including breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy (TM). Recurrence patterns and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed.
Results:
Seventy-five patients (80.7%) underwent BCS, and 71 of them (94.7%) received post-operative radiation therapy (PORT). Eighteen patients (19.3%) underwent TM, with five of them (27.8%) also receiving PORT. With a median follow-up of 50 months, the LRFS rate was 84.2% at 5 years. Local recurrence (LR) was observed in five patients (5.4%) and four cases (80%) of the LR occurred in the tumor bed. Three of LR (3/75, 4.0%) had a history of BCS and PORT, meanwhile, two of LR (2/18, 11.1%) had a history of mastectomy. Regional recurrence occurred in two patients (2.2%), and both cases had a history of PORT with (n=1) and without (n=1) irradiation of the regional lymph nodes. Partial breast irradiation (p=0.35), BCS (p=0.96) and PORT in BCS group (p=0.33) had no significant association with LRFS.
Conclusion
BCS followed by PORT was the predominant treatment approach for ACC of the breast and LR mostly occurred in the tumor bed. The findings of this study suggest that partial breast irradiation might be considered for PORT in primary breast ACC.
8.Impact of HER2-Low Status on Pathologic Complete Response and Survival Outcome Among Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Young Joo LEE ; Tae-Kyung YOO ; Sae Byul LEE ; Il Yong CHUNG ; Hee Jeong KIM ; Beom Seok KO ; Jong Won LEE ; Byung Ho SON ; Sei Hyun AHN ; Hyehyun JEONG ; Jae Ho JUNG ; Jin-Hee AHN ; Kyung Hae JUNG ; Sung-Bae KIM ; Hee Jin LEE ; Gyungyub GONG ; Jisun KIM
Journal of Breast Cancer 2025;28(1):11-22
Purpose:
This study analyzed the pathological complete response (pCR) rates, long-term outcomes, and biological features of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-zero, HER2-low, and HER2-positive breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment.
Methods:
This single-center study included 1,667 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were categorized by HER2 status, and their clinicopathological characteristics, chemotherapy responses, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were analyzed.
Results:
Patients with HER2-low tumors were more likely to be older (p = 0.081), have a lower histological grade (p < 0.001), and have hormone receptor (HorR)-positive tumors (p < 0.001). The HER2-positive group exhibited the highest pCR rate (23.3%), followed by the HER2-zero (15.5%) and HER2-low (10.9%) groups. However, the pCR rate did not differ between HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors in the HorR-positive or HorR-negative subgroups.The 5-year RFS rates increased in the following order: HER2-low, HER2-positive, and HER2-zero (80.0%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, respectively) (log-rank test p = 0.017). A significant survival difference between patients with HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors was only identified in HorR-negative tumors (5-year RFS for HER2-low, 74.5% vs. HER2-zero, 66.0%; log-rank test p-value = 0.04). Multivariate survival analysis revealed that achieving a pCR was the most significant factor associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 4.279; p < 0.001).Compared with HER2-zero, the HRs for HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were 0.787 (p = 0.042) and 0.728 (p = 0.005), respectively. After excluding patients who received HER2-targeted therapy, patients with HER2-low tumors exhibited better RFS than those with HER2-zero (HR 0.784, p = 0.04), whereas those with HER2-positive tumors exhibited no significant difference compared with those with HER2-low tumors (HR, 0.975; p = 0.953).
Conclusion
Patients with HER2-low tumors had no significant difference in pCR rate compared to HER2-zero but showed better survival, especially in HorR-negative tumors.Further investigation into biological differences is warranted.
9.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.
10.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