We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Background: Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are employed to address highly urgent patients, including those with acute liver failure (ALF), acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), or critical cirrhosis. This study compares outcomes between LDLT and DDLT patients with ALF, ACLF, or critical cirrhosis in highly urgent LDLT (HU-LDLT) applications. Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of the Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS) data, which included 391 consecutive HU-LDLT applications from 2017 to 2021. Results: The proportion of DDLT was 15.1% (n=59) within the cohort of HU-LDLT applications. The prevalence of hepatorenal syndrome, duration of pre-transplant intensive care unit (ICU) care, incidence of pre-transplant continuous renal replacement therapy, and median model for end-stage liver disease scores were significantly greater and prolonged in DDLT patients compared to LDLT patients. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in postoperative complications or overall survival between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, only pre-transplant ventilator care emerged as a significant predisposing factor for mortality. Conclusion The present study indicates that LDLT is a viable option, yielding comparable perioperative and long-term outcomes to DDLT for HU patients, which can encourage living liver donation to overcome organ shortages in HU patients.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presents a substantial public health challenge in South Korea as evidenced by 10,565 new cases annually (incidence rate of 30 per 100,000 individuals), in 2020. Cancer registries play a crucial role in gathering data on incidence, disease attributes, etiology, treatment modalities, outcomes, and informing health policies. The effectiveness of a registry depends on the completeness and accuracy of data. Established in 1999 by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Korea Central Cancer Registry (KCCR) is a comprehensive, legally mandated, nationwide registry that captures nearly all incidence and survival data for major cancers, including HCC, in Korea. However, detailed information on cancer staging, specific characteristics, and treatments is lacking. To address this gap, the KCCR, in partnership with the Korean Liver Cancer Association (KLCA), has implemented a systematic approach to collect detailed data on HCC since 2010. This involved random sampling of 10-15% of all new HCC cases diagnosed since 2003. The registry process encompassed four stages: random case selection, meticulous data extraction by trained personnel, expert validation, anonymization of personal data, and data dissemination for research purposes. This random sampling strategy mitigates the biases associated with voluntary reporting and aligns with stringent privacy regulations. This innovative approach positions the KCCR and KLCA as foundations for advancing cancer control and shaping health policies in South Korea.

Purpose: This multi-center, retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the long-term survival in patients who underwent surgical resection for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and to identify the benefit of adjuvant therapy following surgery. Materials and Methods: The data of 213 patients who underwent surgical resection for SCLC at four institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy or an incomplete resection were excluded. Results: The mean patient age was 65.29±8.93 years, and 184 patients (86.4%) were male. Lobectomies and pneumonectomies were performed in 173 patients (81.2%), and 198 (93%) underwent systematic mediastinal lymph node dissections. Overall, 170 patients (79.8%) underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 42 (19.7%) underwent radiotherapy to the mediastinum, and 23 (10.8%) underwent prophylactic cranial irradiation. The median follow-up period was 31.08 months (interquartile range, 13.79 to 64.52 months). The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival were 53.4% and 46.9%, respectively. The 5-year OS significantly improved after adjuvant chemotherapy in all patients (57.4% vs. 40.3%, p=0.007), and the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was significant in patients with negative node pathology (70.8% vs. 39.7%, p=0.004). Adjuvant radiotherapy did not affect the 5-year OS (54.6% vs. 48.5%, p=0.458). Age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.032; p=0.017), node metastasis (HR, 2.190; p < 0.001), and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 0.558; p=0.019) were associated with OS. Conclusion Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgical resection in patients with SCLC improved the OS, though adjuvant radiotherapy to the mediastinum did not improve the survival or decrease the locoregional recurrence rate.