1.Comparison of tissue-based and plasma-based testing for EGFR mutation in non–small cell lung cancer patients
Yoon Kyung KANG ; Dong Hoon SHIN ; Joon Young PARK ; Chung Su HWANG ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Jung Hee LEE ; Jee Yeon KIM ; JooYoung NA
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2025;59(1):60-67
Background:
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation testing is crucial for the administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to treat non–small cell lung cancer. In addition to traditional tissue-based tests, liquid biopsies using plasma are increasingly utilized, particularly for detecting T790M mutations. This study compared tissue- and plasma-based EGFR testing methods.
Methods:
A total of 248 patients were tested for EGFR mutations using tissue and plasma samples from 2018 to 2023 at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital. Tissue tests were performed using PANAmutyper, and plasma tests were performed using the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2.
Results:
All 248 patients underwent tissue-based EGFR testing, and 245 (98.8%) showed positive results. Of the 408 plasma tests, 237 (58.1%) were positive. For the T790M mutation, tissue biopsies were performed 87 times in 69 patients, and 30 positive cases (38.6%) were detected. Plasma testing for the T790M mutation was conducted 333 times in 207 patients, yielding 62 positive results (18.6%). Of these, 57 (27.5%) were confirmed to have the mutation via plasma testing. Combined tissue and plasma tests for the T790M mutation were positive in nine patients (13.4%), while 17 (25.4%) were positive in tissue only and 12 (17.9%) in plasma only. This mutation was not detected in 28 patients (43.3%).
Conclusions
Although the tissue- and plasma-based tests showed a sensitivity of 37.3% and 32.8%, respectively, combined testing increased the detection rate to 56.7%. Thus, neither test demonstrated superiority, rather, they were complementary.
2.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.
3.A Comparison between Keratograph 5M® and IDRA® in Dry Eye Patients
Seo Woo PARK ; Ha-Rim SO ; Ji Won BAEK ; Ho Sik HWANG ; Kyung-Sun NA ; Ho RA ; Nam Yeo KANG ; Hyun Seung KIM ; Eun Chul KIM
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2025;66(4):175-180
Purpose:
To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease.
Methods:
From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness.
Results:
No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045).
Conclusions
The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.
4.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
5.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.
6.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.
7.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
8.Comparison of tissue-based and plasma-based testing for EGFR mutation in non–small cell lung cancer patients
Yoon Kyung KANG ; Dong Hoon SHIN ; Joon Young PARK ; Chung Su HWANG ; Hyun Jung LEE ; Jung Hee LEE ; Jee Yeon KIM ; JooYoung NA
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2025;59(1):60-67
Background:
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation testing is crucial for the administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to treat non–small cell lung cancer. In addition to traditional tissue-based tests, liquid biopsies using plasma are increasingly utilized, particularly for detecting T790M mutations. This study compared tissue- and plasma-based EGFR testing methods.
Methods:
A total of 248 patients were tested for EGFR mutations using tissue and plasma samples from 2018 to 2023 at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital. Tissue tests were performed using PANAmutyper, and plasma tests were performed using the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2.
Results:
All 248 patients underwent tissue-based EGFR testing, and 245 (98.8%) showed positive results. Of the 408 plasma tests, 237 (58.1%) were positive. For the T790M mutation, tissue biopsies were performed 87 times in 69 patients, and 30 positive cases (38.6%) were detected. Plasma testing for the T790M mutation was conducted 333 times in 207 patients, yielding 62 positive results (18.6%). Of these, 57 (27.5%) were confirmed to have the mutation via plasma testing. Combined tissue and plasma tests for the T790M mutation were positive in nine patients (13.4%), while 17 (25.4%) were positive in tissue only and 12 (17.9%) in plasma only. This mutation was not detected in 28 patients (43.3%).
Conclusions
Although the tissue- and plasma-based tests showed a sensitivity of 37.3% and 32.8%, respectively, combined testing increased the detection rate to 56.7%. Thus, neither test demonstrated superiority, rather, they were complementary.
9.A Comparison between Keratograph 5M® and IDRA® in Dry Eye Patients
Seo Woo PARK ; Ha-Rim SO ; Ji Won BAEK ; Ho Sik HWANG ; Kyung-Sun NA ; Ho RA ; Nam Yeo KANG ; Hyun Seung KIM ; Eun Chul KIM
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2025;66(4):175-180
Purpose:
To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease.
Methods:
From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness.
Results:
No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045).
Conclusions
The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.
10.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail