1.The Potential Role of the Rapid Urease Test with the Sweeping Method in the Gray Zone of the Urea Breath Test after Helicobacter pylori Eradication
Ji Hyun KIM ; Ji Min KIM ; Bumhee PARK ; Sun Gyo LIM ; Sung Jae SHIN ; Kee Myung LEE ; Gil Ho LEE ; Choong-Kyun NOH
Gut and Liver 2025;19(3):355-363
Background/Aims:
Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods.
Results:
The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001).
Conclusions
After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.
2.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
3.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
4.The Potential Role of the Rapid Urease Test with the Sweeping Method in the Gray Zone of the Urea Breath Test after Helicobacter pylori Eradication
Ji Hyun KIM ; Ji Min KIM ; Bumhee PARK ; Sun Gyo LIM ; Sung Jae SHIN ; Kee Myung LEE ; Gil Ho LEE ; Choong-Kyun NOH
Gut and Liver 2025;19(3):355-363
Background/Aims:
Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods.
Results:
The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001).
Conclusions
After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.
5.The Potential Role of the Rapid Urease Test with the Sweeping Method in the Gray Zone of the Urea Breath Test after Helicobacter pylori Eradication
Ji Hyun KIM ; Ji Min KIM ; Bumhee PARK ; Sun Gyo LIM ; Sung Jae SHIN ; Kee Myung LEE ; Gil Ho LEE ; Choong-Kyun NOH
Gut and Liver 2025;19(3):355-363
Background/Aims:
Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods.
Results:
The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001).
Conclusions
After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.
6.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
7.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
8.The Potential Role of the Rapid Urease Test with the Sweeping Method in the Gray Zone of the Urea Breath Test after Helicobacter pylori Eradication
Ji Hyun KIM ; Ji Min KIM ; Bumhee PARK ; Sun Gyo LIM ; Sung Jae SHIN ; Kee Myung LEE ; Gil Ho LEE ; Choong-Kyun NOH
Gut and Liver 2025;19(3):355-363
Background/Aims:
Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods.
Results:
The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001).
Conclusions
After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.
9.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
10.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail