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: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of hospital-based case management for patients with severe mental illness. Methods: A total of 106 patients were included. To evaluate the effectiveness of hospital-based case management, the number of hospitalizations, cumulative length of hospitalization, and hospital days/year as well as functioning were compared before and after the hospital-based case management intervention. Cox regression was performed to identify variables that may influence readmission rates other than patients’ hospital-based case management interventions. Results: The number of hospitalizations decreased from 1.4±0.9 to 0.5±1.0 (p<0.001), cumulative length of hospitalization from 73.0±62.3 to 28.1±57.2 days (p<0.001), and hospital days/year from 20.0±17.1 to 7.7±15.7 days (p<0.001). The changes in Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale were 35.3±15.7 points at case management intervention, 43.7±13.9 points after 1 month of case management (p<0.001), 51.2±14.1 points after 3 months (p<0.001), and 53.1±17.6 points after 6 months (p<0.001). Demographic and clinical characteristics that influenced readmissions were GAF at admission (p=0.017), duration (p=0.042), diagnosis (p=0.019), and type of admission (p=0.001). Conclusion Hospital-based case management significantly improved readmission rates and functioning in patients with severe mental illness, supporting its continued implementation and expansion.

Background: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of hospital-based case management for patients with severe mental illness. Methods: A total of 106 patients were included. To evaluate the effectiveness of hospital-based case management, the number of hospitalizations, cumulative length of hospitalization, and hospital days/year as well as functioning were compared before and after the hospital-based case management intervention. Cox regression was performed to identify variables that may influence readmission rates other than patients’ hospital-based case management interventions. Results: The number of hospitalizations decreased from 1.4±0.9 to 0.5±1.0 (p<0.001), cumulative length of hospitalization from 73.0±62.3 to 28.1±57.2 days (p<0.001), and hospital days/year from 20.0±17.1 to 7.7±15.7 days (p<0.001). The changes in Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale were 35.3±15.7 points at case management intervention, 43.7±13.9 points after 1 month of case management (p<0.001), 51.2±14.1 points after 3 months (p<0.001), and 53.1±17.6 points after 6 months (p<0.001). Demographic and clinical characteristics that influenced readmissions were GAF at admission (p=0.017), duration (p=0.042), diagnosis (p=0.019), and type of admission (p=0.001). Conclusion Hospital-based case management significantly improved readmission rates and functioning in patients with severe mental illness, supporting its continued implementation and expansion.

Background: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of hospital-based case management for patients with severe mental illness. Methods: A total of 106 patients were included. To evaluate the effectiveness of hospital-based case management, the number of hospitalizations, cumulative length of hospitalization, and hospital days/year as well as functioning were compared before and after the hospital-based case management intervention. Cox regression was performed to identify variables that may influence readmission rates other than patients’ hospital-based case management interventions. Results: The number of hospitalizations decreased from 1.4±0.9 to 0.5±1.0 (p<0.001), cumulative length of hospitalization from 73.0±62.3 to 28.1±57.2 days (p<0.001), and hospital days/year from 20.0±17.1 to 7.7±15.7 days (p<0.001). The changes in Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale were 35.3±15.7 points at case management intervention, 43.7±13.9 points after 1 month of case management (p<0.001), 51.2±14.1 points after 3 months (p<0.001), and 53.1±17.6 points after 6 months (p<0.001). Demographic and clinical characteristics that influenced readmissions were GAF at admission (p=0.017), duration (p=0.042), diagnosis (p=0.019), and type of admission (p=0.001). Conclusion Hospital-based case management significantly improved readmission rates and functioning in patients with severe mental illness, supporting its continued implementation and expansion.

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.

Background: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of hospital-based case management for patients with severe mental illness. Methods: A total of 106 patients were included. To evaluate the effectiveness of hospital-based case management, the number of hospitalizations, cumulative length of hospitalization, and hospital days/year as well as functioning were compared before and after the hospital-based case management intervention. Cox regression was performed to identify variables that may influence readmission rates other than patients’ hospital-based case management interventions. Results: The number of hospitalizations decreased from 1.4±0.9 to 0.5±1.0 (p<0.001), cumulative length of hospitalization from 73.0±62.3 to 28.1±57.2 days (p<0.001), and hospital days/year from 20.0±17.1 to 7.7±15.7 days (p<0.001). The changes in Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale were 35.3±15.7 points at case management intervention, 43.7±13.9 points after 1 month of case management (p<0.001), 51.2±14.1 points after 3 months (p<0.001), and 53.1±17.6 points after 6 months (p<0.001). Demographic and clinical characteristics that influenced readmissions were GAF at admission (p=0.017), duration (p=0.042), diagnosis (p=0.019), and type of admission (p=0.001). Conclusion Hospital-based case management significantly improved readmission rates and functioning in patients with severe mental illness, supporting its continued implementation and expansion.

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.