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.

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.

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.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in patients surgically treated for clinically early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically earlystage EOC based on preoperative abdominal-pelvic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings between 2007 and 2021. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative complications were compared between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups. Independent prognostic factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were the secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 586 patients (lymphadenectomy group, n=453 [77.3%]; nonlymphadenectomy groups, n=133 [22.7%]) were eligible. After surgical staging, upstaging was identified based on the presence of lymph node metastasis in 14 (3.1%) of 453 patients.No significant difference was found in the 5-year DFS (88.9% vs. 83.4%, p=0.203) and 5-year OS (97.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.895) between the two groups. Using multivariable analysis, lymphadenectomy was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. However, using subgroup analysis, the lymphadenectomy group with serous histology had higher 5-year DFS rates than did the non-lymphadenectomy group (86.5% vs. 74.4%, p=0.048; adjusted hazard ratio=0.281; 95% confidence interval=0.107–0.735; p=0.010). The lymphadenectomy group had longer operating time (p<0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p<0.001), and higher perioperative complication rate (p=0.004) than did the non-lymphadenectomy group. Conclusion In patients with clinically early-stage EOC with serous histology, lymphadenectomy was associated with survival benefits. Considering its potential harm,

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in patients surgically treated for clinically early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically earlystage EOC based on preoperative abdominal-pelvic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings between 2007 and 2021. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative complications were compared between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups. Independent prognostic factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were the secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 586 patients (lymphadenectomy group, n=453 [77.3%]; nonlymphadenectomy groups, n=133 [22.7%]) were eligible. After surgical staging, upstaging was identified based on the presence of lymph node metastasis in 14 (3.1%) of 453 patients.No significant difference was found in the 5-year DFS (88.9% vs. 83.4%, p=0.203) and 5-year OS (97.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.895) between the two groups. Using multivariable analysis, lymphadenectomy was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. However, using subgroup analysis, the lymphadenectomy group with serous histology had higher 5-year DFS rates than did the non-lymphadenectomy group (86.5% vs. 74.4%, p=0.048; adjusted hazard ratio=0.281; 95% confidence interval=0.107–0.735; p=0.010). The lymphadenectomy group had longer operating time (p<0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p<0.001), and higher perioperative complication rate (p=0.004) than did the non-lymphadenectomy group. Conclusion In patients with clinically early-stage EOC with serous histology, lymphadenectomy was associated with survival benefits. Considering its potential harm,

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in patients surgically treated for clinically early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with clinically earlystage EOC based on preoperative abdominal-pelvic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging findings between 2007 and 2021. Oncologic outcomes and perioperative complications were compared between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups. Independent prognostic factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative outcomes were the secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 586 patients (lymphadenectomy group, n=453 [77.3%]; nonlymphadenectomy groups, n=133 [22.7%]) were eligible. After surgical staging, upstaging was identified based on the presence of lymph node metastasis in 14 (3.1%) of 453 patients.No significant difference was found in the 5-year DFS (88.9% vs. 83.4%, p=0.203) and 5-year OS (97.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.895) between the two groups. Using multivariable analysis, lymphadenectomy was not significantly associated with DFS or OS. However, using subgroup analysis, the lymphadenectomy group with serous histology had higher 5-year DFS rates than did the non-lymphadenectomy group (86.5% vs. 74.4%, p=0.048; adjusted hazard ratio=0.281; 95% confidence interval=0.107–0.735; p=0.010). The lymphadenectomy group had longer operating time (p<0.001), higher estimated blood loss (p<0.001), and higher perioperative complication rate (p=0.004) than did the non-lymphadenectomy group. Conclusion In patients with clinically early-stage EOC with serous histology, lymphadenectomy was associated with survival benefits. Considering its potential harm,

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.