Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Purpose: GC1118 is a novel antibody targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with enhanced blocking activity against both low- and high-affinity EGFR ligands. A phase 1b/2a study was conducted to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of GC1118 in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) (phase 1b) and to assess the safety and efficacy of GC1118 plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy for recurrent/metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) (phase 2a). Materials and Methods: Phase 1b was designed as a standard 3+3 dose-escalation study with a starting dose of GC1118 (3 mg/kg/week) in combination with biweekly FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2; leucovorin 400 mg/m2; 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and 2,400 mg/m2 infusion over 46 hours) in patients with solid tumors refractory to standard treatments. The subsequent phase 2a part was conducted with objective response rate (ORR) as a primary endpoint. Patients with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF wild-type, EGFR-positive, recurrent/metastatic CRC resistant to the first-line treatment were enrolled in the phase 2a study. Results: RP2D of GC1118 was determined to be 3 mg/kg/wk in the phase 1b study (n=7). Common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) observed in the phase 2a study (n=24) were acneiform rash (95.8%), dry skin (66.7%), paronychia (58.3%), and stomatitis (50.0%). The most common ADR of ≥ grade 3 was neutropenia (33.3%). ORR was 42.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.5 to 62.0), and median progression-free survival was 6.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-8.0). Conclusion GC1118 administered weekly at 3 mg/kg in combination with FOLFIRI appears as an effective and safe treatment option in recurrent/metastatic CRC.

Background: Sterility and safety assurance of hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) products is critical in transplantation. Microbial contamination can lead to product disposal and increases the risk of unsuccessful clinical outcomes. Therefore, it is important to implement and maintain good practice guidelines and regulations for the HSC collection and processing unit in each hospital. We aimed to share our experiences and suggest strategies to improve the quality assurance of HSC processing. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed microbial culture results of 11,743 HSC products processed over a 25-year period (January 1996 to May 2021). Because of reorganization of the HSC management system in 2008, the 25-year period was divided into periods 1 (January 1996 to December 2007) and 2 (January 2008 to May 2021). We reviewed all culture results of the HSC products and stored aliquot samples and collected culture results for peripheral blood and catheter samples. Results: Of the 11,743 products in total, 35 (0.3%) were contaminated by microorganisms, including 19 (0.5%) of 3,861 products during period 1 and 16 (0.2%) of 7,882 products during period 2. Penicillium was the most commonly identified microorganism (15.8%) during period 1 and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most commonly identified (31.3%) during period 2. HSC product contamination occurred most often during HSC collection and processing. Conclusions The contamination rate decreased significantly during period 2, when the HSC management system was reorganized. Our results imply that handling HSC products by trained personnel and adopting established protocols, including quality assurance programs, aid in decreasing the contamination risk.