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: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

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.

Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

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.

Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

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.