Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

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.

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.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

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.