The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

Rare endocrine diseases are complex conditions that require lifelong specialized care due to their chronic nature and associated long-term complications. In Korea, a lack of nationwide data on clinical practice and outcomes has limited progress in patient care. Therefore, the Multicenter Networks for Ideal Outcomes of Pediatric Rare Endocrine and Metabolic Disease (OUTSPREAD) study was initiated. This study involves 30 centers across Korea. The study aims to improve the long-term prognosis of Korean patients with rare endocrine diseases by collecting comprehensive clinical data, biospecimens, and patient-reported outcomes to identify complications and unmet needs in patient care. Patients with childhood-onset pituitary, adrenal, or gonadal disorders, such as craniopharyngioma, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Turner syndrome were prioritized. The planned enrollment is 1,300 patients during the first study phase (2022–2024). Clinical, biochemical, and imaging data from diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up during 1980–2023 were retrospectively reviewed. For patients who agreed to participate in the prospective cohort, clinical data and biospecimens will be prospectively collected to discover ideal biomarkers that predict the effectiveness of disease control measures and prognosis. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and depression scales, will be evaluated to assess psychosocial outcomes. Additionally, a substudy on CAH patients will develop a steroid hormone profiling method using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to improve diagnosis and monitoring of treatment outcomes. This study will address unmet clinical needs by discovering ideal biomarkers, introducing evidence-based treatment guidelines, and ultimately improving long-term outcomes in the areas of rare endocrine and metabolic diseases.

Rare endocrine diseases are complex conditions that require lifelong specialized care due to their chronic nature and associated long-term complications. In Korea, a lack of nationwide data on clinical practice and outcomes has limited progress in patient care. Therefore, the Multicenter Networks for Ideal Outcomes of Pediatric Rare Endocrine and Metabolic Disease (OUTSPREAD) study was initiated. This study involves 30 centers across Korea. The study aims to improve the long-term prognosis of Korean patients with rare endocrine diseases by collecting comprehensive clinical data, biospecimens, and patient-reported outcomes to identify complications and unmet needs in patient care. Patients with childhood-onset pituitary, adrenal, or gonadal disorders, such as craniopharyngioma, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Turner syndrome were prioritized. The planned enrollment is 1,300 patients during the first study phase (2022–2024). Clinical, biochemical, and imaging data from diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up during 1980–2023 were retrospectively reviewed. For patients who agreed to participate in the prospective cohort, clinical data and biospecimens will be prospectively collected to discover ideal biomarkers that predict the effectiveness of disease control measures and prognosis. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and depression scales, will be evaluated to assess psychosocial outcomes. Additionally, a substudy on CAH patients will develop a steroid hormone profiling method using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to improve diagnosis and monitoring of treatment outcomes. This study will address unmet clinical needs by discovering ideal biomarkers, introducing evidence-based treatment guidelines, and ultimately improving long-term outcomes in the areas of rare endocrine and metabolic diseases.