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.

Osteoid osteoma accounts for approximately 10% of all benign bone tumors, but only approximately 4% of cases occur in the foot and ankle area. Periarticular osteoid osteoma frequently manifests with nonspecific clinical symptoms that mimic other conditions, potentially leading clinicians down a diagnostic side path and resulting in delayed or missed diagnoses compared to extra-articular osteoid osteoma. Although plain radiographs may show nonspecific findings, magnetic resonance imaging can detect bone marrow edema and surrounding soft tissue changes. Computed tomography is the most accurate modality for diagnosis. This paper reports the case of a 26-year-old female diagnosed with periarticular osteoid osteoma of the calcaneus and was treated with arthroscopic localized curettage at the author’s institution.

Purpose: This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with upfront FOLFIRINOX followed by local-regional therapy (LRT), surgical resection (SR), and radiotherapy (RT). We aimed to identify specific patient subgroups for which RT may serve as a reasonable alternative to SR for local tumor control. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 116 patients (SR group, n= 70; RT group, n= 46) at a single center between 2015 and 2020. Survival outcomes were compared based on LRT modalities, focusing on identifying subgroups in which RT provided an efficacy comparable to that of SR. Results: Among 116 patients, the SR group achieved a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (OS) than the RT group (27.1% vs. 8.7%, P< 0.0001), despite similar progression-free survival (P= 0.23). Significant prognostic factors for OS included carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) response in BRPC (P= 0.02) and radiologic partial response in LAPC (P= 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that, while SR provided a survival advantage in CA19-9 responders, no significant difference in OS was observed between SR and RT in CA19-9 non-responders (P= 0.37). Conclusion Although surgery remains the gold standard, RT may be considered a justifiable local alternative for CA19-9 non-responders and surgically ineligible patients with LAPC, yielding comparable outcomes in these specific, biologically unfavorable subgroups.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.