1.Comparison of initial treatments for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria:an observational study based on a nationwide survey
Sang Jin KIM ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hyung-Joon HAN ; Gyu-Seong CHOI ; Kyun-Hwan KIM ; Jongman KIM
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(5):279-294
Purpose:
Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data.
Methods:
Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared.
Results:
A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86).
Conclusion
For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.
2.Comparison of initial treatments for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria:an observational study based on a nationwide survey
Sang Jin KIM ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hyung-Joon HAN ; Gyu-Seong CHOI ; Kyun-Hwan KIM ; Jongman KIM
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(5):279-294
Purpose:
Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data.
Methods:
Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared.
Results:
A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86).
Conclusion
For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.
3.Comparison of initial treatments for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria:an observational study based on a nationwide survey
Sang Jin KIM ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hyung-Joon HAN ; Gyu-Seong CHOI ; Kyun-Hwan KIM ; Jongman KIM
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2025;108(5):279-294
Purpose:
Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data.
Methods:
Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared.
Results:
A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86).
Conclusion
For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.
4.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
5.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
6.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
7.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
8.Are There Advantages in Cervical Intrafacetal Fusion With Minimal Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) Compared to Conventional PLF in Posterior Cervical Fusion?
Sun Woo JANG ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Kyun JOO ; Hong Kyung SHIN ; Jin Hoon PARK ; Sung Woo ROH ; Sang Ryong JEON
Neurospine 2024;21(2):525-535
Objective:
We propose that cervical intrafacetal fusion (cIFF) using bone chip insertion into the facetal joint space additional to minimal PLF is a supplementary fusion method to conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF).
Methods:
Patients who underwent posterior cervical fixation accompanied by cIFF with minimal PLF or conventional PLF for cervical myelopathy from 2012 to 2023 were investigated retrospectively. Radiological parameters including Cobb angle and C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were compared between the 2 groups. In cIFF with minimal PLF group, cIFF location and PLF location were carefully divided, and the fusion rates of each location were analyzed by computed tomography scan.
Results:
Among enrolled 46 patients, 31 patients were in cIFF group, 15 in PLF group. The postoperative change of Cobb angle in 1-year follow-up in cIFF with minimal PLF group and conventional PLF group were 0.1° ± 4.0° and -9.7° ± 8.4° respectively which was statistically lower in cIFF with minimal PLF group (p = 0.022). Regarding the fusion rate in cIFF with minimal PLF group in postoperative 6 months, the rates was achieved in 267 facets (98.1%) in cIFF location, and 244 facets (89.7%) in PLF location (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Postoperative sagittal alignment was more preserved in cIFF with minimal PLF group compared with conventional PLF group. Additionally, in cIFF with minimal PLF group, the bone fusion rate of cIFF location was higher than PLF location. Considering the concerns of bone chip migration onto the spinal cord and relatively low fusion rate in PLF method, applying cIFF method using minimized PLF might be a beneficial alternative for posterior cervical decompression and fixation.
9.Comparative Study on the Immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Patients Receiving Adjuvant and Palliative Chemotherapy
Hyun-Woo CHOI ; Younggon JUNG ; Uh Jin KIM ; Sang-Cheol LEE ; Jung Hye KWON ; Hyeonjong KIM ; Sarah KIM ; Yoonjung LEE ; Hyun-Jung SHIM ; Sang-Hee CHO ; Ik-Joo CHUNG ; Eu Chang HWANG ; Seung Ji KANG ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Seung-Jung KEE
Chonnam Medical Journal 2024;60(1):69-77
This study was conducted to investigate potential differences in vaccine efficacy between patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy and receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the study proved the influence of vaccination timing on vaccine efficacy during active chemotherapy. Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG binding antibody assays and surrogate neutralizing antibody assays were performed after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination in 45 solid cancer patients (23 adjuvant and 22 palliative chemotherapy) and in 24 healthy controls before vaccination (baseline), at every two to four weeks after the first (post-dose 1) and the second vaccination (post-dose 2). The levels of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly from baseline through post-dose 1 to post-dose 2 in all three groups. At the post-dose 1, the anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibody levels were significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy controls. However, by post-dose 2, the seropositivity of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies uniformly reached 100% across all groups, with no significant disparity in antibody levels among the three groups. Moreover, the antibody titers were not significantly different between patients with a vaccine and chemotherapy interval of more than 14 days or those with less than 14 days. This study demonstrated that after second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, humoral immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were comparable to those of healthy controls, regardless of whether the purpose of the anti-cancer treatment was palliative or adjuvant. Furthermore, the timing of vaccination did not affect the level of humoral immunity after the second vaccination.
10.Benefits of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Clinical T3-4N0 Rectal Cancer After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy
Hyun Jin BANG ; Hyun Jeong SHIM ; Jun Eul HWANG ; Woo Kyun BAE ; Ik Joo CHUNG ; Sang Hee CHO
Chonnam Medical Journal 2023;59(1):76-82
While the guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for colon cancer are relatively standardized, those for early rectal cancer are still lacking. We therefore evaluated the role of AC in clinical stage II rectal cancer treatment after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients diagnosed with early rectal cancer (defined by clinical stage T3/4, N0) who completed CRT followed by surgery were enrolled in this retrospective study. To evaluate the role of AC, we analyzed the risk of recurrence and survival based on clinicopathologic parameters and adjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 112 patients, 11 patients (9.8%) experienced recurrence and five patients (4.8%) died. In a multivariate analysis, circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) on magnetic resonance imaging at diagnosis, CRM involvement following neoadjuvant therapy (ypCRM+), tumor regression grade (≤G1) and no-AC were considered poor prognostic factors for recurrence free survival (RFS). In addition, ypCRM+ and no-AC were associated with poor overall survival (OS) in the multivariate analysis. AC including 5-FU monotherapy demonstrated the benefits of reduced recurrence and prolonged survival in clinical stage II rectal cancer, even in pathologic stage following neoadjuvant therapy (ypStage) 0-I. Further prospective studies are needed to verify the benefit of each regimen of AC and the development of a method that can accurately predict CRM status before surgery, and a vigorous treatment that can induce CRM non-involvement (CRM−) should be considered even in early stages of rectal cancer.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail