1.Establishing Regional Aβ Cutoffs andExploring Subgroup Prevalence Across Cognitive Stages Using BeauBrain Amylo®
Seongbeom PARK ; Kyoungmin KIM ; Soyeon YOON ; Seongmi KIM ; Jehyun AHN ; Kyoung Yoon LIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Duk L. NA ; Hee Jin KIM ; Seung Hwan MOON ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Sang Won SEO ; Jaeho KIM ; Kichang KWAK
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(2):135-146
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
2.Study on the Necessity and Methodology for Enhancing Outpatient and Clinical Education in the Department of Radiology
Soo Buem CHO ; Jiwoon SEO ; Young Hwan KIM ; You Me KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Jieun ROH ; Kyung-Hyun DO ; Jung Hwan BAEK ; Hye Shin AHN ; Min Woo LEE ; Seunghyun LEE ; Seung Eun JUNG ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hye Doo JEONG ; Bum Sang CHO ; Hwan Jun JAE ; Seon Hyeong CHOI ; Saebeom HUR ; Su Jin HONG ; Sung Il HWANG ; Auh Whan PARK ; Ji-hoon KIM
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):199-200
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
3.Clinicopathological Correlations of Neurodegenerative Diseases in the National Brain Biobank of Korea
Young Hee JUNG ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Hee Jin KIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Hyun Jeong HAN ; Young Ho KOH ; Duk L. NA ; Yeon-Lim SUH ; Gi Yeong HUH ; Jae-Kyung WON ; Seong-Ik KIM ; Ji-Young CHOI ; Sang Won SEO ; Sung-Hye PARK ; Eun-Joo KIM
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):190-200
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose The National Brain Biobank of Korea (NBBK) is a brain bank consortium supported by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Korea National Institute of Health, and was launched in 2015 to support research into neurodegenerative disease dementia (NDD). This study aimed to introduce the NBBK and describes clinicopathological correlations based on analyses of data collected from the NBBK. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			Four hospital-based brain banks have been established in South Korea: Samsung Medical Center Brain Bank (SMCBB), Seoul National University Hospital Brain Bank (SNUHBB), Pusan National University Hospital Brain Bank (PNUHBB), and Myongji Hospital Brain Bank (MJHBB). Clinical and pathological data were collected from these brain banks using standardized protocols. The prevalence rates of clinical and pathological diagnoses were analyzed in order to characterize the clinicopathological correlations. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			Between August 2016 and December 2023, 185 brain specimens were collected and pathologically evaluated (SNUHBB: 117; PNUHBB: 27; SMCBB: 34; MJHBB: 7). The age at consent was 70.8±12.6 years, and the age at autopsy was 71.7±12.4 years. The four-most-common clinical diagnoses were Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia (20.0%), idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (15.1%), unspecified dementia (11.9%), and cognitively unimpaired (CU) (11.4%).Most cases of unspecified dementia had a pathological diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) vasculopathy (31.8%) or AD (31.8%). Remarkably, only 14.2% of CU cases had normal pathological findings. The three-most-common pathological diagnoses were AD (26.5%), CNS vasculopathy (14.1%), and Lewy body disease (13.5%). 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			These clinical and neuropathological findings provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying NDD in South Korea. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
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.Establishing Regional Aβ Cutoffs andExploring Subgroup Prevalence Across Cognitive Stages Using BeauBrain Amylo®
Seongbeom PARK ; Kyoungmin KIM ; Soyeon YOON ; Seongmi KIM ; Jehyun AHN ; Kyoung Yoon LIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Duk L. NA ; Hee Jin KIM ; Seung Hwan MOON ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Sang Won SEO ; Jaeho KIM ; Kichang KWAK
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(2):135-146
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
6.Establishing Regional Aβ Cutoffs andExploring Subgroup Prevalence Across Cognitive Stages Using BeauBrain Amylo®
Seongbeom PARK ; Kyoungmin KIM ; Soyeon YOON ; Seongmi KIM ; Jehyun AHN ; Kyoung Yoon LIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Duk L. NA ; Hee Jin KIM ; Seung Hwan MOON ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Sang Won SEO ; Jaeho KIM ; Kichang KWAK
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(2):135-146
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
7.Clinicopathological Correlations of Neurodegenerative Diseases in the National Brain Biobank of Korea
Young Hee JUNG ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Hee Jin KIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Hyun Jeong HAN ; Young Ho KOH ; Duk L. NA ; Yeon-Lim SUH ; Gi Yeong HUH ; Jae-Kyung WON ; Seong-Ik KIM ; Ji-Young CHOI ; Sang Won SEO ; Sung-Hye PARK ; Eun-Joo KIM
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):190-200
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose The National Brain Biobank of Korea (NBBK) is a brain bank consortium supported by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Korea National Institute of Health, and was launched in 2015 to support research into neurodegenerative disease dementia (NDD). This study aimed to introduce the NBBK and describes clinicopathological correlations based on analyses of data collected from the NBBK. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			Four hospital-based brain banks have been established in South Korea: Samsung Medical Center Brain Bank (SMCBB), Seoul National University Hospital Brain Bank (SNUHBB), Pusan National University Hospital Brain Bank (PNUHBB), and Myongji Hospital Brain Bank (MJHBB). Clinical and pathological data were collected from these brain banks using standardized protocols. The prevalence rates of clinical and pathological diagnoses were analyzed in order to characterize the clinicopathological correlations. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			Between August 2016 and December 2023, 185 brain specimens were collected and pathologically evaluated (SNUHBB: 117; PNUHBB: 27; SMCBB: 34; MJHBB: 7). The age at consent was 70.8±12.6 years, and the age at autopsy was 71.7±12.4 years. The four-most-common clinical diagnoses were Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia (20.0%), idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (15.1%), unspecified dementia (11.9%), and cognitively unimpaired (CU) (11.4%).Most cases of unspecified dementia had a pathological diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) vasculopathy (31.8%) or AD (31.8%). Remarkably, only 14.2% of CU cases had normal pathological findings. The three-most-common pathological diagnoses were AD (26.5%), CNS vasculopathy (14.1%), and Lewy body disease (13.5%). 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			These clinical and neuropathological findings provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying NDD in South Korea. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
8.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. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
9.Study on the Necessity and Methodology for Enhancing Outpatient and Clinical Education in the Department of Radiology
Soo Buem CHO ; Jiwoon SEO ; Young Hwan KIM ; You Me KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Jieun ROH ; Kyung-Hyun DO ; Jung Hwan BAEK ; Hye Shin AHN ; Min Woo LEE ; Seunghyun LEE ; Seung Eun JUNG ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hye Doo JEONG ; Bum Sang CHO ; Hwan Jun JAE ; Seon Hyeong CHOI ; Saebeom HUR ; Su Jin HONG ; Sung Il HWANG ; Auh Whan PARK ; Ji-hoon KIM
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):199-200
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
10.Establishing Regional Aβ Cutoffs andExploring Subgroup Prevalence Across Cognitive Stages Using BeauBrain Amylo®
Seongbeom PARK ; Kyoungmin KIM ; Soyeon YOON ; Seongmi KIM ; Jehyun AHN ; Kyoung Yoon LIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Duk L. NA ; Hee Jin KIM ; Seung Hwan MOON ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Sang Won SEO ; Jaeho KIM ; Kichang KWAK
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(2):135-146
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
            
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail