Background: The significance of risk modification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well recognized; however, the optimal timing for adminstering PCSK9 inhibitors remains unclear. Additionally, the lipid-lowering efficacy of evolocumab and alirocumab has not been fully established. This study evaluated the lipid-lowering effects of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ACS, including unstable angina, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, who were treated with a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab or alirocumab) during hospitalization for ACS between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed, and changes in LDL-C levels during the acute and subacute phases after PCSK9 inhibitor administration were compared between the evolocumab and alirocumab groups. Results: Among 80 patients diagnosed with ACS, 36 received evolocumab, while 44 were treated with alirocumab. The mean baseline LDL-C level was 123 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 128 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.456). In the subacute phase, the mean follow-up LDL-C levels were 47.05 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 49.5 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.585). The mean percentage reduction in LDL-C levels during the subacute phase was 60.41% in the evolocumab group and 58.51% in the alirocumab group (p=0.431). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions No significant differences were observed between evolocumab and alirocumab. LDL-C levels exhibited a similar trend, characterized by a rapid decline in the acute phase, followed by a slight rebound in the subacute phase.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

Background: The significance of risk modification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well recognized; however, the optimal timing for adminstering PCSK9 inhibitors remains unclear. Additionally, the lipid-lowering efficacy of evolocumab and alirocumab has not been fully established. This study evaluated the lipid-lowering effects of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ACS, including unstable angina, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, who were treated with a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab or alirocumab) during hospitalization for ACS between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed, and changes in LDL-C levels during the acute and subacute phases after PCSK9 inhibitor administration were compared between the evolocumab and alirocumab groups. Results: Among 80 patients diagnosed with ACS, 36 received evolocumab, while 44 were treated with alirocumab. The mean baseline LDL-C level was 123 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 128 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.456). In the subacute phase, the mean follow-up LDL-C levels were 47.05 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 49.5 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.585). The mean percentage reduction in LDL-C levels during the subacute phase was 60.41% in the evolocumab group and 58.51% in the alirocumab group (p=0.431). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions No significant differences were observed between evolocumab and alirocumab. LDL-C levels exhibited a similar trend, characterized by a rapid decline in the acute phase, followed by a slight rebound in the subacute phase.

Background: The significance of risk modification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well recognized; however, the optimal timing for adminstering PCSK9 inhibitors remains unclear. Additionally, the lipid-lowering efficacy of evolocumab and alirocumab has not been fully established. This study evaluated the lipid-lowering effects of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ACS, including unstable angina, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, who were treated with a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab or alirocumab) during hospitalization for ACS between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed, and changes in LDL-C levels during the acute and subacute phases after PCSK9 inhibitor administration were compared between the evolocumab and alirocumab groups. Results: Among 80 patients diagnosed with ACS, 36 received evolocumab, while 44 were treated with alirocumab. The mean baseline LDL-C level was 123 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 128 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.456). In the subacute phase, the mean follow-up LDL-C levels were 47.05 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 49.5 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.585). The mean percentage reduction in LDL-C levels during the subacute phase was 60.41% in the evolocumab group and 58.51% in the alirocumab group (p=0.431). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions No significant differences were observed between evolocumab and alirocumab. LDL-C levels exhibited a similar trend, characterized by a rapid decline in the acute phase, followed by a slight rebound in the subacute phase.

The femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.

The femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

The femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.