Helicobacter pylori causes gastric cancer and peptic ulcers, and eradication therapy can reduce the incidence of cancer in high-risk groups. In Korea, discrepancies between the reimbursement criteria and clinical guidelines create clinical challenges. This study investigated the perceptions and practices of experts regarding H. pylori testing during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and any subsequent eradication therapy. An anonymous 8-question survey was conducted among 51 experts attending the 2024 Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research Summer Workshop. Only 2% of the experts tested all patients. Testing was performed in 54% of patients with a family history of gastric cancer, 32% of those with atrophic gastritis, 42% of those with dyspeptic symptoms, and 62% of those with iron-deficiency anemia. Among patients with suspected infections (based on endoscopic findings) and eligible for selective reimbursement, 82% underwent H. pylori testing. Age did not influence testing decisions for 60% of the experts, and 57% considered factors other than age when deciding on eradication therapy. The practices of the experts varied depending on the patient’s clinical condition and economic burden. Aligning clinical guidelines with the reimbursement criteria is necessary to reduce confusion and ensure appropriate patient care.

Purpose: Recent development in perioperative treatment of resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changed the landscape of early lung cancer management. The ADAURA trial has demonstrated the efficacy of adjuvant osimertinib treatment in resectable NSCLC patients; however, studies are required to show which subgroup of patients are at a high risk of relapse and require adjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. This study evaluated risk factors for postoperative relapse among patients who underwent complete resection. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from the Korean Association for Lung Cancer Registry (KALC-R), a database created using a retrospective sampling survey by the Korean Central Cancer Registry (KCCR) and the Lung Cancer Registration Committee. Results: A total of 3,176 patients who underwent curative resection was evaluated. The mean observation time was approximately 35.4 months. Among stage I to IIIA NSCLC patients, the EGFR-mutant subgroup included 867 patients, and 75.2%, 11.2%, and 11.8% were classified as stage I, stage II, and stage III, respectively. Within the EGFR-mutant subgroup, 44 (5.1%) and 121 (14.0%) patients showed early and late recurrence, respectively. Multivariate analysis on association with postoperative relapse among the EGFR-mutant subgroup showed that age, pathologic N and TNM stages, pleural invasion status, and surgery type were independent significant factors. Conclusion Among the population that underwent complete resection for early NSCLC with EGFR mutation, patients with advanced stage, pleural invasion, or limited resection are more likely to show postoperative relapse.

Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones. Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded. Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057). Conclusion Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.

Helicobacter pylori causes gastric cancer and peptic ulcers, and eradication therapy can reduce the incidence of cancer in high-risk groups. In Korea, discrepancies between the reimbursement criteria and clinical guidelines create clinical challenges. This study investigated the perceptions and practices of experts regarding H. pylori testing during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and any subsequent eradication therapy. An anonymous 8-question survey was conducted among 51 experts attending the 2024 Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research Summer Workshop. Only 2% of the experts tested all patients. Testing was performed in 54% of patients with a family history of gastric cancer, 32% of those with atrophic gastritis, 42% of those with dyspeptic symptoms, and 62% of those with iron-deficiency anemia. Among patients with suspected infections (based on endoscopic findings) and eligible for selective reimbursement, 82% underwent H. pylori testing. Age did not influence testing decisions for 60% of the experts, and 57% considered factors other than age when deciding on eradication therapy. The practices of the experts varied depending on the patient’s clinical condition and economic burden. Aligning clinical guidelines with the reimbursement criteria is necessary to reduce confusion and ensure appropriate patient care.

Helicobacter pylori causes gastric cancer and peptic ulcers, and eradication therapy can reduce the incidence of cancer in high-risk groups. In Korea, discrepancies between the reimbursement criteria and clinical guidelines create clinical challenges. This study investigated the perceptions and practices of experts regarding H. pylori testing during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and any subsequent eradication therapy. An anonymous 8-question survey was conducted among 51 experts attending the 2024 Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research Summer Workshop. Only 2% of the experts tested all patients. Testing was performed in 54% of patients with a family history of gastric cancer, 32% of those with atrophic gastritis, 42% of those with dyspeptic symptoms, and 62% of those with iron-deficiency anemia. Among patients with suspected infections (based on endoscopic findings) and eligible for selective reimbursement, 82% underwent H. pylori testing. Age did not influence testing decisions for 60% of the experts, and 57% considered factors other than age when deciding on eradication therapy. The practices of the experts varied depending on the patient’s clinical condition and economic burden. Aligning clinical guidelines with the reimbursement criteria is necessary to reduce confusion and ensure appropriate patient care.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.