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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Purpose: This study aimed to provide the basic data needed to estimate future urologist supply and demand by applying various statistical models related to healthcare utilization. Materials and Methods: Data from multiple sources, including the Yearbook of Health and Welfare Statistics, Korean Hospital Association, Korean Medical Association, and the Korean Urological Association, were used for supply estimation. Demand estimation incorporated data on both clinical and non-clinical urologists, along with future population estimates. In-and-out moves and demographic methods were employed for supply estimation, while the Bureau of Health Professions model was utilized for demand estimation. Supply estimation assumptions included fixed resident quotas, age-specific death rates, migration rates, and retirement age considerations. Demand estimation assumptions included combining clinical and nonclinical urologist demands, adjusting population size for age-related healthcare usage variations. Urologist productivity was determined by adjusting productivity levels to 100%, 90%, and 80% of the base year based on actual clinical practice volumes. Results: Estimations of both demand and supply consistently indicate an oversupply of urologists until 2025, followed by an expected shortage by 2035 owing to increased deaths and retirements attributed to the aging urologist population. This shortage becomes more pronounced when employing more reliable models, such as logit or ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average), underscoring the growing need for urologists in the future. Conclusions All estimation models estimated an oversupply of urologists until 2025, transitioning to a deficit due to reduced supply thereafter. However, considering potential unaccounted factors, greater effort is needed for accurate predictions and corresponding measures.