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.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.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.
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.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.
6.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
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.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.Mutation-Driven Immune Microenvironments in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Unrevealing Patterns through Cluster Analysis
Youngtaek KIM ; Joon Yeon HWANG ; Kwangmin NA ; Dong Kwon KIM ; Seul LEE ; Seong-san KANG ; Sujeong BAEK ; Seung Min YANG ; Mi Hyun KIM ; Heekyung HAN ; Seong Su JEONG ; Chai Young LEE ; Yu Jin HAN ; Jie-Ohn SOHN ; Sang-Kyu YE ; Kyoung-Ho PYO
Yonsei Medical Journal 2024;65(12):683-694
Purpose:
We aimed to comprehensively analyze the immune cell and stromal components of tumor microenvironment at the single-cell level and identify tumor heterogeneity among the major top-derived oncogene mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data.
Materials and Methods:
The scRNA-seq dataset utilized in this study comprised 64369 primary tumor tissue cells from 21 NSCLC patients, focusing on mutations in EGFR, ALK, BRAF, KRAS, TP53, and the wild-type.
Results:
Tumor immune microenvironment (TIM) analysis revealed differential immune responses across NSCLC mutation subtypes. TIM analysis revealed different immune responses across the mutation subtypes. Two mutation clusters emerged: KRAS, TP53, and EGFR+TP53 mutations (MC1); and EGFR, BRAF, and ALK mutations (MC2). MC1 showed higher tertiary lymphoid structures signature scores and enriched populations of C2-T-IL7R, C3-T/NK-CXCL4, C9-T/NK-NKG, and C1-B-MS4A1 clusters than cluster 2. Conversely, MC2 cells exhibited higher expression levels of TNF, IL1B, and chemokines linked to alternative immune pathways. Remarkably, co-occurring EGFR and TP53 mutations were grouped as MC1. EGFR+TP53 mutations showed upregulation of peptide synthesis and higher synthetic processes, as well as differences in myeloid and T/NK cells compared to EGFR mutations. In T/NK cells, EGFR+TP53 mutations showed a higher expression of features related to cell activity and differentiation, whereas EGFR mutations showed the opposite.
Conclusion
Our research indicates a close association between mutation types and tumor microenvironment in NSCLC, offering insights into personalized approaches for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail