1.Bisphenol Analogs Downregulate the Self-Renewal Potential of Spermatogonial Stem Cells
Seo-Hee KIM ; Seung Hee SHIN ; Seok-Man KIM ; Sang-Eun JUNG ; Beom-Jin SHIN ; Jin Seop AHN ; Kyoung Taek LIM ; Dong-Hwan KIM ; Kichoon LEE ; Buom-Yong RYU
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(1):154-165
Purpose:
In this study, we investigated the effect of bisphenol-A (BPA) and its major analogs, bisphenol-F (BPF), and bisphenol-S (BPS), on spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) populations using in vitro SSC culture and in vivo transplantation models.
Materials and Methods:
SSCs enriched from 6- to 8-day-old C57BL/6-eGFP+ male mice testes were treated with varying concentrations of bisphenols for 7 days to examine bisphenol-derived cytotoxicity and changes in SSC characteristics. We utilized flow cytometry, immunocytochemistry, real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR, and western blot analysis. The functional alteration of SSCs was further investigated by examining donor SSC-derived spermatogenesis evaluation through in vivo transplantation and subsequent testis analysis.
Results:
BPF exhibited a similar inhibitory effect on SSCs as BPA, demonstrating a significant decrease in SSC survival, inhibition of proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. On the other hand, while BPS was comparatively weaker than BPA and BPF, it still showed significant SSC cytotoxicity. Importantly, SSCs exposed to BPA, BPF, and BPS exhibited a significant reduction in donor SSC-derived germ cell colonies per total number of cultured cells, indicating that, like BPA, BPF, and BPS can induce a comparable reduction in functional SSCs in the recipient animals. However, the progress of spermatogenesis, as evidenced by histochemistry and the expressions of PCNA and SSC specific markers, collectively indicates that BPA, BPF, and BPS may not adversely affect the spermatogenesis.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that the major BPA substitutes, BPF and BPS, have significant cytotoxic effects on SSCs, similar to BPA. These effects may lead to a reduction in the functional self-renewal stem cell population and potential impacts on male fertility.
2.Microwave ablation vs. liver resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas
Hyundam GU ; Yeonjoo SEO ; Dong Jin CHUNG ; Kwang Yeol PAIK ; Seung Kew YOON ; Jihye LIM
Journal of Liver Cancer 2025;25(1):99-108
Background:
s/Aims: Microwave ablation (MWA) is an emerging ablative therapy that surpasses previous methods by achieving higher temperatures and creating larger ablation zones within shorter periods. This study compared the therapeutic outcomes of MWA with those of liver resection in real-world clinical practice.
Methods:
A total of 178 patients with 259 nodules who underwent MWA or liver resection between January 2015 and July 2023 were enrolled. Local tumor progression (LTP)-free survival, overall progression (OP)-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were assessed based on the treatment modality for the index nodule.
Results:
Of the 178 patients, 134 with 214 nodules underwent MWA, and 44 with 45 nodules underwent liver resection. The median follow-up period was 2.0±1.5 years. The annual incidence of LTP was 3.7% for MWA and 1.4% for liver resection. Treatment modality did not significantly affect LTP-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-2.69; P=0.511). For nodules larger than 3 cm, LTP-free survival was not affected by the treatment modality. Similarly, OP-free survival and OS were not influenced by treatment modality.
Conclusions
MWA and liver resection demonstrated comparable treatment outcomes in terms of local tumor control, overall recurrence, and survival. MWA may be an alternative treatment option for select patients; however, further studies are necessary to generalize these findings.
3.Bisphenol Analogs Downregulate the Self-Renewal Potential of Spermatogonial Stem Cells
Seo-Hee KIM ; Seung Hee SHIN ; Seok-Man KIM ; Sang-Eun JUNG ; Beom-Jin SHIN ; Jin Seop AHN ; Kyoung Taek LIM ; Dong-Hwan KIM ; Kichoon LEE ; Buom-Yong RYU
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(1):154-165
Purpose:
In this study, we investigated the effect of bisphenol-A (BPA) and its major analogs, bisphenol-F (BPF), and bisphenol-S (BPS), on spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) populations using in vitro SSC culture and in vivo transplantation models.
Materials and Methods:
SSCs enriched from 6- to 8-day-old C57BL/6-eGFP+ male mice testes were treated with varying concentrations of bisphenols for 7 days to examine bisphenol-derived cytotoxicity and changes in SSC characteristics. We utilized flow cytometry, immunocytochemistry, real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR, and western blot analysis. The functional alteration of SSCs was further investigated by examining donor SSC-derived spermatogenesis evaluation through in vivo transplantation and subsequent testis analysis.
Results:
BPF exhibited a similar inhibitory effect on SSCs as BPA, demonstrating a significant decrease in SSC survival, inhibition of proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. On the other hand, while BPS was comparatively weaker than BPA and BPF, it still showed significant SSC cytotoxicity. Importantly, SSCs exposed to BPA, BPF, and BPS exhibited a significant reduction in donor SSC-derived germ cell colonies per total number of cultured cells, indicating that, like BPA, BPF, and BPS can induce a comparable reduction in functional SSCs in the recipient animals. However, the progress of spermatogenesis, as evidenced by histochemistry and the expressions of PCNA and SSC specific markers, collectively indicates that BPA, BPF, and BPS may not adversely affect the spermatogenesis.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that the major BPA substitutes, BPF and BPS, have significant cytotoxic effects on SSCs, similar to BPA. These effects may lead to a reduction in the functional self-renewal stem cell population and potential impacts on male fertility.
4.Bisphenol Analogs Downregulate the Self-Renewal Potential of Spermatogonial Stem Cells
Seo-Hee KIM ; Seung Hee SHIN ; Seok-Man KIM ; Sang-Eun JUNG ; Beom-Jin SHIN ; Jin Seop AHN ; Kyoung Taek LIM ; Dong-Hwan KIM ; Kichoon LEE ; Buom-Yong RYU
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(1):154-165
Purpose:
In this study, we investigated the effect of bisphenol-A (BPA) and its major analogs, bisphenol-F (BPF), and bisphenol-S (BPS), on spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) populations using in vitro SSC culture and in vivo transplantation models.
Materials and Methods:
SSCs enriched from 6- to 8-day-old C57BL/6-eGFP+ male mice testes were treated with varying concentrations of bisphenols for 7 days to examine bisphenol-derived cytotoxicity and changes in SSC characteristics. We utilized flow cytometry, immunocytochemistry, real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR, and western blot analysis. The functional alteration of SSCs was further investigated by examining donor SSC-derived spermatogenesis evaluation through in vivo transplantation and subsequent testis analysis.
Results:
BPF exhibited a similar inhibitory effect on SSCs as BPA, demonstrating a significant decrease in SSC survival, inhibition of proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. On the other hand, while BPS was comparatively weaker than BPA and BPF, it still showed significant SSC cytotoxicity. Importantly, SSCs exposed to BPA, BPF, and BPS exhibited a significant reduction in donor SSC-derived germ cell colonies per total number of cultured cells, indicating that, like BPA, BPF, and BPS can induce a comparable reduction in functional SSCs in the recipient animals. However, the progress of spermatogenesis, as evidenced by histochemistry and the expressions of PCNA and SSC specific markers, collectively indicates that BPA, BPF, and BPS may not adversely affect the spermatogenesis.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that the major BPA substitutes, BPF and BPS, have significant cytotoxic effects on SSCs, similar to BPA. These effects may lead to a reduction in the functional self-renewal stem cell population and potential impacts on male fertility.
5.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
6.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
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.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
9.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
10.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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail