Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic and relapsing gastrointestinal disorder characterized by the reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus, leading to troublesome symptoms and/or complications. Since the publication of the 2020 Seoul Consensus on GERD, significant new evidence has emerged, particularly regarding acid-suppressive therapies and diagnostic approaches. This 2025 focused update aims to refine GERD management strategies by incorporating the latest evidence on acid suppressive therapies and regional considerations in Asian populations. This study builds on the 2020 Seoul Consensus by integrating systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and expert consensuses to offer updated recommendations for the definition and medical treatment of GERD. These guidelines incorporate recent advances in acid-suppressive therapies, particularly potassium-competitive acid blockers, and adopt updated diagnostic frameworks in accordance with the Lyon Consensus 2.0. Key clinical questions were identified and structured using the following format: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome. The resulting recommendations address the initial treatment, long-term maintenance strategies, and role of personalized therapy based on disease severity, such as the grade of reflux esophagitis. Six key statements are presented: updated definition and classification of GERD (Statement 1); initial and long-term treatment strategies tailored to GERD phenotypes, such as non-erosive reflux disease, mild erosive esophagitis, and severe erosive esophagitis (Statements 2-5); and dose optimization strategies for long-term safety (Statement 6). These guidelines aim to support gastroenterologists and general healthcare providers in making individualized evidence-based decisions for GERD management.

Korea’s healthcare system is at a critical juncture as rapid population aging, rising chronic disease burdens, and fragmented care expose the limits of a hospital-centered, fee-for-service model. Although policy discussions have long emphasized strengthening primary care and introducing a “family doctor” system, past reforms have focused mainly on expanding services or redefining professional roles, without establishing clear accountability, care continuity, or aligned payment mechanisms. Consequently, primary care remains weak and responsibility for comprehensive patient management is diffuse. This article argues that meaningful reform requires redefining the primary physician as an accountable manager of longitudinal, coordinated care within an integrated delivery and payment framework. Drawing on experiences from the United States, the United Kingdom, and several European countries, it identifies common features of successful primary care–oriented systems, including patient registration, team-based care, risk-adjusted payment, and explicit outcome accountability. Based on these insights, the authors propose a Korean primary physician model tailored to solo and small-group practices while fostering regional collaboration. Core elements include voluntary patient registration, multidisciplinary primary care teams, risk-stratified care management, regional care networks, and a mixed payment model combining per-member-per-month payments, shared savings, and performance-based incentives. The article emphasizes phased pilot testing focused on operational feasibility. Ultimately, transitioning to a primary care–centered system is presented as a strategic necessity for sustainability and improved care continuity.

South Korea’s current healthcare system stands at a critical crossroads that will determine whether it can progress in a better direction over the next decade. Behind the relatively stable level of population health that has been maintained until now, it has become clear that the deterioration of patient experiences, the risk of collapse in critical emergency medical services, the burnout of healthcare providers, and the crisis in the sustainability of healthcare finances have all accumulated simultaneously. This crisis can no longer be overcome by partial fixes or short-term measures alone. The answer to what needs to change first must begin with a reaffirmation of what the healthcare system should aim for. Ultimately, what needs to be changed now is not an individual policy, but the criteria and priorities through which we view healthcare. The focus must shift from what to provide more of, to questioning what holds greater social value. If such a shift does not begin now, in ten years we won’t face a better healthcare system, but care enmeshed in a deeper crisis. Now is precisely the time to fundamentally define the direction of the healthcare system.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Dietary supplement use is common among breast cancer survivors, but studies on Asian populations remain limited. This study investigated dietary supplement use among Korean breast cancer survivors, distinguishing between vitamin/ mineral (VM) and non-vitaminon-mineral (NVNM) supplements. SUBJECTS/METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 1,136 stage I–III breast cancer survivors from 12 Korean hospitals, who survived more than 6 mon post-surgery. The participants completed a questionnaire on post-diagnostic dietary supplement use. Stepwise logistic regression was applied, calculating odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify the demographic and clinical factors associated with VM and NVNM use. RESULTS: Seventy percent of survivors reported supplement use, with 25% using a single product. The most common VM supplements were multivitamins/minerals, vitamin D, and vitamin C, while the most common NVNM supplements included omega-3 fatty acids, probiotics, and ginseng. Survivors with higher education and greater physical activity were more likely to use VM supplements (ORs [95% CIs], 2.74 [1.76–4.25] for college graduates or above vs. middle school or below; 1.38 [1.02–1.88] for the most active group vs. the least active group). NVNM use was associated with higher education, greater physical activity levels, and a history of smoking (ORs [95% CIs], 2.29 [1.46–3.58] for college graduates or above vs. middle school or below; 1.52 [1.13–2.06] for the most active group vs. the least active group; 2.00 [1.23–3.25] for ever smokers vs. never smokers). Survivors who had undergone chemotherapy were also more likely to use NVNM supplements than those who had not (OR [95% CI], 1.37 [1.02–1.84]). CONCLUSION Seventy percent of Korean breast cancer survivors used dietary supplements in this study. VM use was associated with higher education and physical activity, while higher NVNM use was associated with higher education, greater physical activity, a history of smoking, and chemotherapy.

Purpose: While MRI-based tumor regression grade (mrTRG) has shown promise in evaluating pathologic response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in rectal cancer, its ability to predict pathologic complete response remains limited.This study aimed to enhance mrTRG’s diagnostic performance in predicting ypT0–1N0 status, a key factor in considering non-radical management after CCRT for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Methods: This retrospective study included 430 patients with LARC who underwent radical resection following CCRT at a single referral hospital between April 2018 and September 2024. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors associated with achieving ypT0–1N0 status. The diagnostic performances of mrTRG1–2 alone and in combination with other factors were assessed by comparing sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV), negative-predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC). Results: Ninety-three patients (21.6%) achieved ypT0–1N0. In the multivariable analysis, fungating type, cT1–2, and mrTRG1–2 were independent predictors for ypT0–1N0. Integrating mrTRG with gross tumor type yielded the highest AUC of 0.689 among the combined models. For predicting ypT0–1N0, the combination of mrTRG and gross tumor type improved PPV (79.2% vs. 41.5% for mrTRG alone) while also demonstrating enhanced sensitivity compared with ycT0–1N0, the conventional MRI-based predictor (40.9% vs. 22.6%). Conclusion This study demonstrated that combining mrTRG and gross tumor type improved the PPV of mrTRG in predicting ypT0–1N0 after CCRT in LARC. Further studies are warranted to validate the role of gross tumor type in refining predictive systems for selecting candidates for non-radical treatment.

Purpose: This study aimed to report the real-world outcomes of intravesical gemcitabine for bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive, high-risk, non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC) in Korean patients who were unable or unwilling to undergo radical cystectomy (RC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 131 patients (median age, 69 years; 88.5% men) treated with intravesical gemcitabine for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC at nine centers between May 2019 and April 2022. The primary endpoint was 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). The secondary endpoints included factors influencing RFS, progression-free survival (PFS), cystectomy- free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk factors for recurrence were assessed using Cox regression models. Results: Patients were followed up for a median duration of 25 months, with carcinoma in situ (CIS) in 41.9% of the patients. The 1-year and 2-year RFS rates were 68% and 42%, while the 1-year and 2-year PFS rates were 87% and 77%, respectively. No significant factors influencing RFS were identified. Seventeen patients underwent RC during a median follow-up of 16 months, with the condition in three patients progressing to muscle-invasive disease on final pathological analysis. The 2-year CSS and OS rates were 98% and 97%, respectively. Intravesical gemcitabine was well-tolerated, with only seven patients (5.3%) unable to complete the full induction course. Conclusion Our research highlights the potential of intravesical gemcitabine as a viable bladder-sparing treatment option for BCG-unresponsive HR-NMIBC, providing real-world evidence on its safety, efficacy, and tolerability.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the detection ability of quality of life (QoL) changes and responsiveness of the KOrean QUality of life in Stomach cancer patients Study group (KOQUSS)-40 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ). Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate QoL changes after various gastrectomies between January 2021 and April 2022. Participants were instructed to complete the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. QoL changes over time and QoL responsiveness were assessed for each questionnaire. Results: Data from 491 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer at 22 institutions were analyzed. The summary scores of the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-STO22 showed significant differences between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.044 and p=0.038, respectively), but no difference was observed for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Dysphagia on the KOQUSS-40 was significantly different between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.031); however, dysphagia on the EORTC QLQ-STO22 did not differ. The responsiveness of the KOQUSS-40 was similar to that of the EORTC QLQ in patients who experienced ≥ 10% body weight loss, but approximately 10% less in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy than the EORTC QLQ. Conclusion KOQUSS-40 has several advantages over EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 when comparing QoL between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups. The findings provide information for researchers investigating the QoL of patients who have undergone curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Purpose: The male predominance in the incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is established; however, sex differences in the prognosis of GC remain controversial. As such, this study analyzed the prognosis of patients with GC based on age and sex. Materials and Methods: Data from 14,739 patients diagnosed with GC at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between 2003 and 2023 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, histological types of GC, overall and GC-specific survival rates (age and stage stratification), and associated risk factors were analyzed. Results: Females were significantly younger (p < 0.001) and exhibited more gastric body cancers (p < 0.001) and tumors with diffuse-type or poorly differentiated histology (p < 0.001) than males. Females exhibited an advantage over males in terms of overall survival (p=0.004), but not in GC-specific survival. However, age stratification revealed significant sex differences, that females < 50 years of age exhibited survival disadvantages (p < 0.001); however, this trend was reversed with age, and females > 60 years exhibited survival advantages (p < 0.001) for both overall and GC-specific survival. This may be explained by the lower ratio of diffuse-type GC as females age. Furthermore, in the analysis according to stage, females with stage IV disease exhibited significant survival disadvantages, with significantly younger age and a higher proportion of diffuse-type GC which exhibits aggressive features, resulting in poorer survival than in males. Conclusion Age and stage stratification revealed significant differences in survival between the sexes, which can be helpful for public health strategies.

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.