Background/Aims: Despite numerous global changes in Helicobacter pylori treatment guidelines over the past decade, no comprehensive nationwide trend analysis has been conducted.We aimed to investigate the annual trends in the use of H. pylori treatment regimens on the basis of hospital type and region to identify whether changes in prescription patterns aligned with the Korean guidelines updated in 2013 and 2020. Methods: Using data from Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment database spanning from January 2010 to December 2022, we extracted the performance code for H. pylori diagnosis along with the drug combination code for H. pylori treatment. Results: We analyzed the annual trends in standard triple therapy (STT; n=664,748), bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT; n=151,828), concomitant therapy (CT; n=3,034), sequential therapy (SEQ; n=1,612), and salvage treatment. Overall, STT use declined, with the use of 7-day STT decreasing but the use of 10- and 14-day STT increasing. The use of BQT as a first-line treatment consistently increased, and non-BQT (i.e., CT and SEQ) use also increased sharply since 2019.The tendency to adhere to the guideline changes was more pronounced in primary care clinics.Salvage treatment with BQT after STT failure exhibited a declining trend from 2010 to 2017, followed by an increase since 2018. Salvage treatment with levofloxacin triple therapy after BQT failure increased over time. Conclusions This long-term nationwide trend analysis revealed that real-world prescriptions for H. pylori treatment generally corresponded to the updated guidelines. Efforts are needed to disseminate the revised guidelines to achieve higher compliance rates.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.

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.

Background: Rapid pathogen identification and antibiotic-susceptibility tests (ASTs) are important for treating bloodstream infections. We compared the performance of the QMAC-dRAST and BD Phoenix M50 direct AST (dPhoenix) systems using bacterial pellets prepared from positive blood culture broth and evaluated their impact on treatment modification. Methods: Direct AST results for 106 Enterobacterales isolates were retrospectively reviewed. Conventional broth microdilution was used to calculate categorical agreement (CA), very major error (VME), major error (ME), and minor error (mE). For isolates showing high VMEs in both methods, supplementary tests were performed. Clinical impact was evaluated by calculating the time required to obtain AST results (time-to-result) and observing changes in antibiotics prescribed after performing ASTs. Results: Both systems showed acceptable overall CA, VME, ME, and mE values (QMACdRAST: 93.6%, 1.6%, 0.9%, and 5.3%, respectively; dPhoenix: 93.1%, 0.9%, 0.6%, and 6.2%, respectively). Piperacillin–tazobactam showed high VMEs with QMAC-dRAST (4/20, 20.0%) and dPhoenix (3/20, 15.0%). Colony AST on 13 isolates revealed that QMACdRAST testing yielded lower minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for piperacillin–tazobactam with three isolates, whereas dPhoenix testing yielded higher MICs with two isolates and lower MICs with two isolates. The average time-to-result was 20.8 hr and 30.1 hr for QMAC-dRAST and dPhoenix, respectively (P < 0.001). After AST, the number of optimal treatments increased from 43 (46.7%) to 72 (78.3%) (P < 0.001). Conclusions The QMAC-dRAST and dPhoenix systems provided reliable AST results with a short time-to-result. However, we recommend performing complementary tests, such as the disk diffusion test, for piperacillin–tazobactam.

Purpose: Patient-derived cells (PDCs) and patient-derived organoids (PDOs) are complementary preclinical models widely used in translational cancer research. However, their molecular and functional differences have not been systematically characterized. This study established and analyzed paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same gastric cancer ascites to delineate platform-dependent molecular and functional profiles. Materials and Methods: Malignant ascites or pleural fluid obtained from 6 patients with advanced gastric cancer were used to establish paired PDC and PDO models. All pairs underwent comprehensive multi-omics profiling, integrating genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data. Phenotypic characterization included morphological, histological, proliferative, and cell cycle analyses. Drug sensitivity assays were performed using 4 chemotherapeutic agents commonly used to treat gastric cancer. Results: The 6 paired PDC and PDO models exhibited distinct morphological characteristics.Whole-genome analyses demonstrated high concordance among primary tumors, PDCs, and PDOs, confirming tumor representation across platforms. Multi-omics profiling identified platform-dependent molecular signatures; PDOs were enriched for extracellular matrix remodeling and stemness, whereas PDCs displayed proliferation- and immune-related signatures. Clinically relevant biomarkers, including HER2 and MET alterations, were concordant with primary tumors. Notably, drug responses differed between platforms and patients, indicating platform-dependent and patient-specific chemosensitivity. Conclusions Paired PDC and PDO models derived from the same patients preserved core patient-specific tumor characteristics while exhibiting distinct molecular and functional profiles. These findings underscore the culture platform as a critical determinant of experimental outcomes and therapeutic responses. Therefore, careful selection of an appropriate preclinical model is essential to accurately address biological questions and optimize precision oncology strategies.

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–ultralow breast cancer among cases initially classified as HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 0 and assess interobserver variability in interpreting low-level HER2 expression. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, all invasive breast cancer cases diagnosed between January and December 2022 across 10 Korean institutions were retrieved. Institutional pathologists reexamined HER2 IHC slides originally reported as IHC 0 according to the 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines and reclassified them as HER2-null (0), HER2-ultralow (0+), or HER2-low (1+). Slides from 10% of HER2-null and HER2-ultralow cases were digitized for central review and independently assessed by two pathologists, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Results: Among 8,026 cases, 2,836 cases (35.5%) were initially reported as IHC 0. Upon re-review, 1,673 (59.0%), 1,139 (40.2%), and 24 (0.8%) cases were reclassified as HER2-null, HER2-ultralow, and HER2-low, respectively. The prevalence of HER2-ultralow breast cancer varied considerably across institutions (23.7%–78.1%). Central review of 268 digitized cases showed concordance in 193 cases (72.0%). Among the 75 discordant cases, 54 tumors (72.0%) were upgraded from HER2-null to HER2-ultralow, and 18 (24.0%) tumors were upgraded from HER2-ultralow to HER2-low. Furthermore, two tumors (2.7%) were downgraded from HER2-ultralow to HER2-null. Conclusions: Approximately 40% of cases initially categorized as IHC 0 were reclassified as HER2-ultralow. The substantial inter-institutional variability observed in interpreting low-level HER2 expression highlights the need for standardized training and quality assurance to ensure accurate identification of patients eligible for HER2-targeted antibody–drug conjugates.

Purpose: This developmental study explored the conceptual feasibility and applicability of a metaverse-based clinical assessment platform as a complementary tool to conventional objective structured clinical examinations in undergraduate medical education. Methods: A targeted literature review and expert consensus process were conducted to identify domains of clinical competence in which metaverse technologies could provide added value. Based on these findings, prototype virtual patient simulations were developed within a metaverse environment. Large language models (LLMs) were integrated to support dynamic, interactive history-taking simulations, and pilot modules for physical examination were also created. Results: Integration of LLMs into virtual patient scenarios enabled realistic, context-sensitive medical interviews, facilitating interactive dialogue between examinees and simulated patients. In contrast, physical examination modules faced technical limitations, particularly in replicating procedures requiring tactile or haptic feedback, such as palpation and percussion. Nevertheless, the metaverse environment enabled delivery of consistent and reproducible scenarios, supporting objective assessment of communication and diagnostic reasoning skills. Conclusion Metaverse-based simulations augmented by LLMs offer a promising approach to scalable and standardized clinical assessment, particularly within cognitive and interpersonal competency domains. Although current technological constraints limit the fidelity of physical examination simulations, rapid advancements in immersive and haptic technologies may help overcome these barriers in the near future. Further research is needed to evaluate the educational efficacy, validity, and feasibility of deploying such platforms in summative, high-stakes assessment contexts.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of supplemental automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) added to mammography-based breast cancer screening for women with nondense breasts. Materials and Methods: A retrospective search of radiology databases at two tertiary institutions identified asymptomatic women with nondense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening using both digital mammography (DM) and supplemental ABUS between January 2020 and December 2023. We excluded women without sufficient follow-up data or those without an established final diagnosis, including histopathologic results. The performance measures of DM alone and ABUS combined with DM (ABUS plus DM) were compared. The primary outcome was the cancer detection rate (CDR), and the secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were performed for women with scattered fibroglandular density and almost entirely fatty breasts. Results: A total of 2,904 pairs of screening examinations were performed in 1,683 women (59 ± 10 years), detecting 26 cancers. In comparison with DM alone, ABUS plus DM showed higher CDR (9.0 vs. 7.9 per 1,000 examinations, P < 0.001), higher sensitivity (100% [26/26] vs. 88.5% [23/26], P < 0.001), and lower specificity (95.0% [2,735/2,878] vs. 97.9% [2,817/2,878], P < 0.001). In women with scattered fibroglandular density, ABUS increased the CDR from 7.4 to 8.5 per 1,000 examinations and improved the sensitivity from 87.0% [20/23] to 100% [23/23] (P < 0.001). In women with almost entirely fatty breasts, ABUS plus DM showed the same CDR (16.4 per 1,000 examinations) and sensitivity (100% [3/3]) as DM alone. Three cancers (11.5% [3/26]), all of which were stage T1N0, were detected only by supplemental ABUS. Conclusion Supplemental ABUS improved cancer detection and sensitivity in women with nondense breasts, with the benefits primarily observed in those with scattered fibroglandular density.

Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.