News
Newsletter of the
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
January 2010 (Vol. 5)
The 1st Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology
(ASGO) Conference Held Successfully by
Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Along with the 1st Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ASGO) conference,
the 8 th Korea-Japan Joint Gynecologic
Oncology Meeting was held successfully
last November 21 st and 22 nd in Toshi
Center Hotel, Tokyo in Japan, attended
by around 100 members from 10 Asian
member nations. The meeting was
mainly on the recent research and study
of cervical cancer, ovarian cancer.
At the last session, the latest treatment of
cervical cancer performed in each of
countries attended was shared.
Professor Kang, Soon Beom of Seoul
National University College of Medicine,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology was elected as the very first
president of ASGO and Professor
Toshiharu Kamura of Kurume University, Japan hosted the 1st Biennial Meeting as a
conference president. This conference had a historic significance in that it involved in
founding the representative gynecologic oncology society of Asia that will be, hopefully,
equivalent to the world renowned regional societies such as European Society of
Gynecologic Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.
At this 1st ASGO conference, it was unanimously agreed that that the 2nd ASGO conference
will be hosted in Seoul in November 2011 as well as an educational workshop to be held in
Seoul in July 2010 for the development of gynecologic oncology societies in developing
countries of Asia.
Professor Kang, who is undertaking the position of the first presidency, has an ambitious
plan of advancing the society to be the representative gynecologic oncology society of Asia
that includes countries from all around Asia although, at the moment, it consists only of 10
member countries. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology will hopefully be the center of
systematic and common studies and education as well as the hope for gynecologic oncology
patients in Asian region.
Next Meeting
ASGO Education Meeting
2nd ASGO Biennial Meeting
• Date : July 31, 2010
• Venue: Seoul Nat’l Univ. Hospital,
Clinical Research Institute
• Date : November 4-5, 2011
• Venue: Seoul, Korea
Table of
Contents:
The 1st Asian Society of Gynecologic
Oncology (ASGO) Conference
Held Successfully by Asian Society
of Gynecologic Oncology
1
The 1st Biennial Meeting of Asian
Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Scientific Meeting Program
2
KGOG Papers Published
3
Newly Published Research
Works of KGOG Clinical Trials
4
How to Write a Good
Grant Proposal
6
New Response Evaluation Criteria
in Solid Tumors (RECIST ver 1.1) 7
The 4th Korean Gynecologic
Oncology Group Meeting
10
Korean Gynecologic Oncology
Group-Reorganized
13
Asian Society of Gynecologic
Oncology (ASGO)
2nd Biennial Meeting
15
KGOG
#102, 55-5 Nonhyun-dong,
Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-010, Korea
Tel : +822-512-5420
Fax: +822-512-5421
Homepage : www.kgog.org
E-mail : koreagynonco@hanmail.net
Editor : Soon-Beom Kang, M.D., Ph.D.
The 1st Biennial Meeting of
Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Scientific Meeting Program
KGOG
■Date
November 21 Council Meeting
November 22 Scientific Meeting
November 22
■Venue
Toshi Center Hotel
2-4-1 Hirakawa-cho Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 102-0093 Japan
TEL: +81 3 3265 8211 FAX: +81 3 3262 1705
http://www.toshicenter.co.jp/e/index.html
Room 701
9:00 ~ 10:40
Symposium on Cervical Cancer
Part 1 “Epidemiology and Diagnosis”
Chairperson:
Mohammad Farid Aziz(Indonesia), Ikuo Konishi (Japan)
Speaksers:
Woong Ju (Korea), Annie NY Cheung (Hong Kong)
Chih Long Chang (Taiwan), Heru Priyanto Samadi (Indonesia)
10:40 ~ 12:00
Symposium on Cervical Cancer
Part 2 “HPV Vaccine and Prevention” sponsored by GSK
Chairperson:
Hee Sug Ryu (KOR), Hiroyuki Yoshikawa(JPN)
Speakers:
Hyun Hoon Chung (Korea), Ryo Konno (Japan)
Supriadi Gandamiharja (Indonesia)
12:00 ~ 12:40
Lunch Time
12:40 ~13:40
Commemoration Lecture from IGCS and SGO
Speaker:
Ted Trimble (National Cancer Institute, United States)
Chairperson:
Shingo Fujii (National Hospital Organaization Kyoto Medical Center, Japan)
13:40 ~ 15:10
15:10 ~ 17:30
18:15 ~ 20:00
2
Room 705~706
Poster View
Poster Tours
Symposium on Cervical Cancer
Part 3 “New Trend of Treatment”
Chairperson:
Sarikapan Wilailak (Thailand), Satoru Sagae (Japan)
Speakers:
Joo Hyun Nam (Korea), Kung Liahng Wang (Taiwan)
Hiroaki Kobayashi (Japan), Chomporn Sitathanee (Thailand)
SK Shrivastava (India), Yin Nin Chia (Singapore)
Gala Dinner at Grand Prince Hotel Akasaka
(47th Annual Meeting of JSGO & 32nd Annual Meeting of JSGOS)
KGOG Papers Published
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
Protocol
No.
Title
Journal
Authors, Corresponding Author
1003
Clearance of human papillomavirus infection
after successful conization in patients with
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Int J Cancer 2009
Jul 29. [Epub
ahead of print]
Young-Tak Kim, Jong Min Lee, Soo-Young Hur,
Chi-Heum Cho, Young Tae Kim, Seung Cheol Kim,
Soon Beom Kang
1005
(3)
Efficacy of different types of treatment in FIGO
stage IB2 cervical cancer in Korea: results of a
multicenter retrospective Korean study
(KGOG-1005).
Int J Gynecol
Cancer 2007
Jan-Feb;17(1):1
32-6.
H.-S. RYU, S.B. KANG, K.-T. KIM, K.-H. CHANG,
J.W. KIM & J.-H. KIM, KOREAN GYNECOLOGIC
ONCOLOGY GROUP
1006
Cervical cancer associated with pregnancy:
results of a multicenter retrospective Korean
study (KGOG-1006).
Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2008
Jan;198(1): 92.
e1-6.
Jong-Min Lee, Kwang-Beom Lee, Young-Tak Kim,
Hee-Sug Ryu, Young-Tae Kim, Chi-Heum Cho,
Sung-Eun Namkoong, Ki-Hun Lee, Ho-Sun Choi,
Kyung-Tai Kim
1007
(3)
Prognostic factors in FIGO stage IB-IIA small
cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine
cervix treated surgically: results of a multi-center
retrospective Korean study.
Ann Oncol
2008 Feb;19(2):
321-6.
J-M. Lee, K.-B. Lee, J.-H. Nam, S.-Y. Ryu, D.-S. Bae,
J.-T. Park, S.-C. Kim, S.-D. Cha, K.-R. Kim, S.-Y.
Song and S.-B. Kang
1010
Validation of a nomogram for predicting
outcome of vulvar cancer patients, primarily
treated by surgery, in Korean population:
multicenter retrospective study through Korean
Gynecologic Oncology Group (KGOG-1010).
J Gynecol Oncol.
2008 Sep;19(3):
191-4.
Mi-Kyung Kim, Jae Weon Kim, Jong-Min Lee,
Nak-Woo Lee, Moon-Seok Cha, Byoung-Gie Kim,
Ki Heon Lee, Young-Tae Kim, Jae-Hoon Kim,
Eun-Seop Song, Moon-Hong Kim, Sang-Young Ryu,
Won Gyu Kim, Young-Tak Kim, Kyung-Tai Kim,
Soon-Beom Kang
2004
Ovarian preservation during the surgical
treatment of early stage endometrial cancer:
A nation-wide study conducted by the Korean
Gynecologic Oncology Group.
Gynecol Oncol.
2009 Jul 25
Taek Sang Lee, Jae Weon Kim, Tae Jin Kim, Chi
Heum Cho, Sang Young Ryu, Hee-Sug Ryu, Byoung
Gie Kim, Keun Ho Lee, Yong Man Kim, Soon-Beom
Kang and the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
Survey
Surgical practice patterns in endometrial cancer:
results of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology
Group survey.
J Gynecol Oncol.
2009 Jun;20(2):
107-12.
Taek Sang Lee, Jae Weon Kim, Sung Hoon Kim,
Seok Ju Seong, Eun-Seop Song, Jae-Hoon Kim,
Jong-Hyeok Kim, Noh-Hyun Park, Ki-Heon Lee,
Nak-Woo Lee, Hee-Sug Ryu
Letter
to
editor
Benefit of lymphadenectomy in endometrial
cancer: Can the truth be obtained by RCT
after ASTEC?
Int J Gynecol
Cancer. 2009
Lee, Taek Sang1; Kim, Jae Weon2; Seong, Seok Ju;
Ryu, Hee Sug, on behalf of Korean Gynecologic
Oncology Group - Uterine Corpus Committee
3003
Prognostic significance of histological grade in
clear-cell carcinoma of the ovary: a retrospective
study of Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group.
Ann Oncol.
2009 Jun;20(6):
103 2-6.
S.-Y. Ryu, S.-I. Park, B.-H. Nam, I. Kim, C. W. Yoo,
J.-H. Nam, K. H. Lee, C.-H. Cho, J.-H. Kim, S. Y.
Park, B.-G. Kim and S.-B. Kang
3004
Clinicopathologic characteristics of malignant
germ cell tumors in the ovaries of Korean women:
a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.
Int J Gynecol
Cancer. 2009
Jan;19(1):84-7.
Lee, Ki Heon; Lee, In Ho; Kim, Byoung Gie; Nam, Joo
Hyun; Kim, Won Kyu; Kang, Soon Beom; Ryu, Sang
Young; Cho, Chi Heum; Choi, Ho Sun; Kim, Kyung
Tai for the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
3005
Retrospective multicenter study of a
clinicopathologic analysis of pseudomyxoma
peritonei associated with ovarian tumors
(KGOG 3005).
Int J Gynecol
Cancer. 2008
Sep-Oct;18(5):
916-20.
LEE, J. K; SONG, S. H.; KIM, I.; LEE, K. H.; KIM, B.
G.; KIM, J. W.; KIM, Y. T.; PARK, S. Y.; CHA, M. S.;
KANG, S. B.
3
Newly Published Research Works of
KGOG Clinical Trials
KGOG
4
nc
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
5
How to Write a Good Grant Proposal
KGOG
Chi-Hum, Cho
Department of
Obstetrics and
Gynecology
Keimyung University
School of Medicine
I’ve never learnt or even thought about
how to write a research proposal or the
method all through medical school and
internship. I, myself, have never thought
about it. I could never do any thinking for
about a year busy taking care of my
patients after I made the first step into
college as a full-time lecturer. After that, I
made frequent visits to a former classmate’s office for leisure where I had a lot
of help and challenge. I often heard about
where he submitted the research proposal
but was not accepted or where he will
submit it next and so on, and I got
interested myself. I got to know where the
research funds come from and that there
are various types of research funds from
small ones to a big national ones. After
that, I started to write research proposals
with a lot of frustrations at first, but later
on, I started to enjoy the benefits of
research funds and built up some
confidence. I cannot say I had a lot of
successes but I hope this chapter will be a
help to many doctors who are making
their first step.
First, the most important thing about
writing a paper or research proposal is
having an innovative idea and a proposal
can be thought to be a good one if the
idea involved the thinking process of
6
attracting the buyers (the institutions
giving out the research fund or reviewers
if it’s a paper). The most important point
in this type of approach is that it should
be logical and that developing of the
theory was based on evidence. Think of a
salesman selling a product. A simple,
easy-to-understand example might be a
salesman who knows the pros and cons of
his product well and present what the
buyer can buy. The importance of this
point is not limited to research proposals.
This is the basic concept that you must
have and you must think of one field that
you regard important to achieve it. This is
also not easy for those who are undertaking an experiment or a research for the
first time, but from my experience, I think
it is important to study something that
not many others do, select one field and
put in consistent investment. That it,
when someone is deciding on the criteria
for assessment when screening for the
research fund, one would consider the
feasibility of success of the researcher and
make the investment, which point makes
a continuous research in one field
important.
The most important thing when making a
research proposal is to master the purpose
of the research-hosting institution and
why they are offering the public
subscription. When a new research fund
is announced, the first description is
always on the introduction of the research
fund and who are eligible to apply.
Therefore, it is important to write a
research proposal based on the guideline.
Most tasks require the following.
1. Necessity of the research
2. Research objectives and contents
3. Promotion strategy and method of the
research
4. Practical use and expectations of the
research results
For necessity of the research, you must
describe the background of the research
you want to do simply and logically as
well as the trend within and outside the
country. You must make the clear
statement why this research is necessary
and why it must be done based on what
you’ve described. When doing so, you
must not cite the list too descriptively and
it is important that it is reorganized so
that it can easily be recognized by anyone.
As for research objectives and contents,
the objectives must be shown precisely
and quantitatively, the methods to
achieve the said objectives must be
recorded in detail and the preceding
research results shown if necessary.
As for the promotion strategy and
method of the research, the performed
research methods must be arrayed or
arranged in some way and a strategy must
be devised to draw good results.
As for practical use and expectations of
the research results, explain the anticipated social and overall effects of the
research results and describe the expected
achievements based on the results.
Currently, research funds provided in
Korea are mostly given by National
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
Research Foundation of Korea, Korea
Scientific Foundation, Ministry for
Health, Welfare and Family Affairs and
Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology except for those given by
universities and research labs.
Also, investigators must always have
completed the preparatory study
equivalent to 70% of the research before
applying for the research fund and it is
also important to pursue the research in
the same, consistent direction. I hope this
content will be helpful to new investigators preparing for research funds.
New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
(RECIST ver 1.1)
Taek-Sang, Lee
Boramae Medical Center
Introduction
The oncology field has been continuously witnessing the
development of new anticancer agents; various clinical studies
are being conducted to validate them, and the number is
continuing to grow. Correspondingly, it is very important to
accurately evaluate the tumor response for validation of the
usefulness of a new drug compared to conventional drugs in
deciding the treatment direction for a patient and to predicting
prognosis; we can evaluate whether a new drug is valuable
enough to replace the conventional treatment only based on the
result measured by objective and reliable criteria.
Due to such reason, numerous investigators have been trying to
establish the criteria for evaluation of responsiveness of
chemotherapy; among them, the criteria by the World Health
Organization (WHO) published by Miller, et al. in 1981 has
been widely used.1 According to the WHO criteria, the response
is defined as complete response, partial response, progressive
disease or stable disease depending on the degree of response;
the size of each tumor is shown in bidimension and in case there
are multiple legions, the product of dimensions of each legion
was obtained, and the sum of such product was used for the final
response evaluation. However, the classification by WHO
criteria was too complicated to be used in clinical practice, and
due to such complexity of adjudication criteria, the evaluation
result of response to a drug used to be arbitrarily interpreted by
the drug manufacturer involved in the drug development; to
address such problems, new methods for tumor response
evaluation were suggested and the RECIST (response evaluation
criteria in solid tumors) criteria were published in 2000.2 This is
a unidimensional method; the product of the longest diameter of
each lesion is obtained and the evaluation of response to
chemotherapy before and after treatment is to be specified in line
with 4 criteria as the WHO criteria. The core contents of
RECIST are 1) the sum of the longest diameter of each tumor
has more linear relationship with tumor cell apoptosis than the
sum of products of bidimensional figures, 2) the smallest
diameter of a measurable lesion is stipulated as 20 mm, 3) the
number of lesions required for response evaluation is specified as
the maximum of 10. Subsequently, RECIST was applied to
advanced gastric cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, etc., and a
7
New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
(RECIST ver 1.1)
KGOG
conclusion was reached that there is no difference in the
response rate between WHO and RECIST criteria.3-5
Why Update RECIST?
Since RECIST was introduced in 2000, several issues had been
raised continuously while applying this for tumor response
evaluation; relevant details are as follows:
1. Is it necessary that the number of target legions required for
overall tumor response evaluation reach 10?
2. In a phase 3 clinical study with the primary objective of
investigating the disease progression, not the degree of
tumor response, if measurable lesion is not clear, it might be
necessary that the method of RECIST application should be
different.
3. How to use PET or MRI that are being widely used in
evaluation of tumor recurrence?
4. If a lesion suspected of lymph node metastasis is included in
tumor evaluation, what criteria should be applied?
5. Is it necessary to re-confirm the evaluation of the degree of
response?
6. RECIST that evaluates the response of solid tumor to
anticancer agent was revised in 9 years.
7. For evaluation of response to target agents that are being
used currently, what criteria should be used?
Regarding these issues, centered around Europe, the RECIST
Working group consisting of clinicians, statisticians,
pharmaceutical companies, imaging scientists, etc. published the
revised RECIST ver 1.1 in the early 2009 in the Special Edition of
European Journal of Cancer after applying and validating the
newly revised contents by using the cohort of 6,500 or more
patients and 18,000 or more cases of target lesion in the database
of EORTC data center. Key revision items of RECIST 1.1 are as
follows.
• Number of target lesions to be evaluated: The number of
lesions required for response evaluation was reduced from the
maximum of 10 to 5, the maximum of 5 per organ to 2.
• Lymph node evaluation: A lymph node with a short axis of 15
mm or longer might be a measurable target lesion; the size of
a lymph node by such unilateral measuring should be
included in the sum of lesions when calculating the tumor
response.
• Confirmation of response: Although this is still required in
clinical studies with the primary objective of degree of
response, it is not required in randomized studies with the
main objective of degree of disease progression. This is
because in randomized studies, a control group might
provide appropriate information for interpretation of data
from the study group.
• Definition of progressive lesion: Other than defining
progression as 20% or more increase in the sum of target
legions, absolute increase of 5 mm in size is required. This is
to prevent the description of changes in very small tumors in
only several mm as disease progression since such changes
might be within the range of measuring error. In addition, in
relation to the contents on ‘unequivocal progression’ of nonmeasurable/non-target legion that had been confusing in the
previous guideline, more unequivocal criterion was presented
Table 1. What has changed in RECIST 1.1
RECIST 1.0
Measuring tumor burden
10 targets (5/organ)
5 targets (2/organ)
Lymph node
Measuring long axis as for other lesions.
Silent on normal size.
Measure short axis. Define normal size.
Progression definition
20% increase in sum
Non-measurable disease PD
“Must be unequivocal”
Confirmation
Required
20% increase and at least 5 mm
absolute increase.
Expanded definition to convey impact
on overall burden of disease.
Required when response primary
endpoint but not PFS
New sections which includes comments
on FDG-PET interpretation
New lesions
8
RECIST 1.1
__
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
as “the case in which the degree of change for entire target
legions show a substantial change”, not referring to the
change in size for only one targe lesion.
• Guideline for imaging examination: Use of imaging
examination for detection of a new lesion, interpretation of
FDG-PET scan evaluation, etc. are included.
Conclusion
The latest revision was implemented at an appropriate timing to
address questions that had been raised so far with the
development of methodology and various treatment agents since
2000. It is considered that the latest revision would not influence
the interpretation of clinical study results that had been
conventionally implemented in that it maintained the previous
RECIST framework to evaluate the responsiveness of tumor by
anatomical approach while simplifying and optimizing the work
load related to the conduct of a clinical study.
References
1. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting
results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47: 207-14.
2. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan
RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the
response to treatment in solid tumors. European
Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National
Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer
Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205-16.
3. Yoshida S, Miyata Y, Ohtsu A, Boku N, Shirao K, Shimada Y.
Significance of and problems in adopting response evaluation
criteria in solid tumor RECIST for assessing anticancer effects
of advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2000;3:128-33.
4. Werner-Wasik M, Xiao Y, Pequignot E, Curran WJ, Hauck
W. Assessment of lung cancer response after nonoperative
therapy: tumor diameter, bidimensional product, and
volume. A serial CT scan-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 2001;51:56-61.
5. Trillet-Lenoir V, Freyer G, Kaemmerlen P, Fond A, Pellet
O,Lombard-Bohas C, et al. Assessment of tu-mour response
to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of
the RECIST criteria. Br J Ra-diol 2002;75:903-8.
6. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent
D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M,
Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D,
Verweij J. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours:
revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009
Jan;45(2):228-47.
9
The 4th Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Meeting
KGOG
Woong, Ju
Ewha Womans
University Mokdong
Hospital
Last July, as monsoon rains that come
and go ceased and full-blown scorching
heat of summer was creeping in, our
party that left Incheon Airport to attend
the 79 th GOG Semi-Annual Meeting
arrived safely at Dulles Airport in
Washington D.C. in the morning of July
15th, local time. It took about an hour
from Dulles Airport to Baltimore where
the conference was held and during this
time my hope for success of the 4 th
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
Meeting that was going to be held during
this conference never stopped in the
corner of my mind despite the long
journey and the fatigue I felt.
We arrived at Baltimore Marriott
Waterfront Hotel where the conference
was held, were each assigned to the rooms
and settled in. After all the settling-in was
done, we gathered at the lobby for lunch.
It flickered across my mind that
Baltimore was no sanctuary from all that
heat we were faced with back in Korea
from which we hoped to run away. It was
possibly even worse. As Andrew Warhola,
a great figure in the history of pop art,
once pointed out, we were sick of
standardized mass production of in-flight
meals and were dying for lunch with
some oriental soup that could ease the
fatigue and void of our long journey, and
the executive director, a man of great
10
sense, saw through the needs of the public
and took us to a nearby Japanese
restaurant.
Japanese restaurant La. Interior with
modern sense and a variety of menus
caught my attention. We set down and
dove into the menu. After a little while, an
optimum list of menus was selected that
could soothe our empty stomach and as
everyone was hoping someone would
start ordering with fluent English, the chef
eased us with a quick sense saying “I’m a
Korean.”
Everyone instantly felt that this restaurant
was going to be our place for lunch for a
couple of days ahead of us and could not
hide our relief.
After lunch, we decided to maximize the
efficiency of overcoming the jetlag - some
people trying to rub sleep off their eyes by going on a tour of Johns Hopkins
Hospital, the dream of those in the field
of medicine. Several people joined in
upon hearing an acquaintance of
Professor Kwon, Yong-il, happened to be
studying in the graduate program of
School of Public Health in Johns Hopkins
School of Medicine who could give an indepth tour of the place. Our party
received the favor of Dr. Jung, Hun-Jae,
who was studying at Johns Hopkins, and
were filled with admiration as we took the
tour around Johns Hopkins Hospital
which is known to be one of the hospitals
with the best clinical medicine.
We decided to have dinner/discussion
which is essential for successful
participation in the conference of next
day after a quick break. Our party got to
spend a special evening at the historic
Obrycki’s Crab House upon recommendation of a commendable participant who
searched through various blogs to taste
Baltimore's famous Blue Crab. We each
grabbed one blue crab stacked full on a
platter, used a small knife and a wooden
hammer to dissect and taste the chewy
flesh of crab and took a sip of famous
Samuel Adams beer without which
experience I believe no one should say
that one enjoyed the true taste of
Baltimore.
There were obvious wanting expressions
on the faces around the table as the
amicable dinner at Obrycki’s House
started to die down. It was the first trip to
the States for some and some did not
make the slightest effort to hide not
wanting to go back to hotel rooms for
deep affection for KGOG. A professor
who is great at grasping situations and
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group
livening up the mood opened his mouth
with a sentence.
“Alright, beer on me. I take it there’s
HOOTERS around our hotel”
It was Professor Kim, Young-Tak, who
had a joyous occasion in the family
coming a few days later. He studied in
Baltimore before and he took the highly
elated group to HOOTERS. Ah,
HOOTERS. One of the trendiest bars that
one could hardly get a seat rooted as
famous energy factories in places like in
Apgujeong and Gangnam with all that
youth and vitality and the famous owl
logo. The proud KGOG members took
over the HOOTERS bar with all that
cheeriness to which was drawn even the
owner of the place, an American, who
brought out some munchies on the
house, did love-shots with the members
and even presented Professor Kim with a
T-shirt with HOOTERS owl logo on it. I
saw the opportunity, made my way in
with body language and got another
HOOTERS T-shirt for myself, making a
great contribution to our suffering
economy.
After a simple arrival event in the night of
15th, we had a great sleep to participate
with eager in the GOG meeting on the
16 th to study GOG protocol proposal,
evaluation, adoption and procedures.
Individual protocols will not be explained
here for lack of space. That evening, we
soothed our tired body and soul with
dinner with wine at Fleming’s steak house
in front of the hotel and played our roll in
scholarly interchange and civil diplomacy
through candid conversations with
American GOG members.
The 17th was the opening day of KGOG
meeting. In the 4th KGOG meeting that
was proceeded from 4 p.m., foreign and
Korean speakers like Dr. Daniela Matei,
Dr. Robert Coleman, Dr. Wui-Jin Koh
etc. presented and discussed about
GOG258, GOG213 and GOG263
protocols followed by introduction and
Q&A on KGOG protocols related to
GOG237, GOG9601 and HPV vaccine in
the 2nd part of the meeting.
A grand dinner party was held in a few
Korean restaurants “Jongkak” that existed
in Baltimore. GOG investigators, responsible person for data management and
statistics and research nurses sat down
with KGOG members around each table
enjoying Korean BBQ to have meaningful
time. At that very spot KGOG President
Kang, Soon-Beom, thanked everybody for
ever-enriching KGOG meetings and
proposed a toast for high level of quality
in the future multinational, multicenter
studies through organic cooperation
between KGOG and GOG.
A time of friendship and thanking
ensued, eventually leading to waves of
Soju-Macju shots, which is a big hit in
Korea, and the night of KGOG meeting
blossomed with ever more frequent
laughter and clanging of glasses in
between English, Korean and Konglish.
11
GOG 79th Semi-Annual Meeting (July 16-19, 2009)
The 4th Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Meeting
• Date : Friday, July 17, 2009 (16:00~18:00)
• Venue : Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel (Harborside Salon E)
16:00-16:05
Opening Remark
Soon-Beom Kang, M.D. (President of KGOG, Seoul National University Hospital)
Part I. GOG Protocol Statement
16:05-16:20
GOG0258 A randomized phase III trial of cisplatin and tumor volume directed irradiation followed by
carboplatin and paclitaxel vs. carboplatin and paclitaxel for optimally debulked, advanced endometrial
carcinoma
Daniela Matei (Indiana University Medical Center)
David Mutch (Washington University School of Medicine)
Marcuse Randall (University of Kentucky Department of Radiation Medicine)
16:20-16:35
•Measurement of tumor volume
•Tumor volume and prognosis in endometrial cancer
•Definition of optimal debulking for endometrial cancer
•Sequential vs concurrent chemoradiation in endometrial cancer
•Targeted therapy for endometrial cancer
16:35-16:50
Soon-Beom Kang(Seoul National Univ. Hosp.)
Byoung-Gie Kim(Samsung Medical Center)
Jae Weon Kim(Seoul National Univ. Hosp.)
Hang Jo Yoo(Ulsan Univ. Hosp.)
Jong-Hyeok Kim(Asan Medical Center)
GOG 0213 A phase III randomized controlled clinical trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel alone
or in combination with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab and secondary cytoreductive surgery in
platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian, peritoneal primary and fallopian tube cancer
Robert Coleman(UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center)
16:50-17:05
•Definition of platinum sensitivity
•Selection of surgical candidate
•Efficacy of bevacizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer
•Rationale for ‘no surgery’ in operable patients
•Background of sequential single agents chemotherapy
Joo-Hyun Nam(Asan Medical Center)
Jae-Hoon Kim(Kangnam Severance Hosp.)
Yong-Il Kwon(Kangdong Sacred Heart Hosp.)
Young Tak Kim(Asan Medical Center)
Kidong Kim(Korea Cancer Center Hosp.)
17:05-17:20
GOG 0263 Randomized phase III clinical trial of adjuvant radiation versus chemoradiation in
Intermediate risk, stage I/IIA cervical cancer treated with initial radical hysterectomy and
pelvic lymphadenectomy
Sang-Young Ryu (Korea Cancer Center Hosp.)
Wui-Jin Koh (University of Washington School of Medicine)
17:20-17:35
•Cooperation with radiation oncologist
•Validation of radiotherapy
•The role of IMRT in early cervical cancer
•Definition of clinical tumor size
•Changes of inclusion criteria
Chi-Heum Cho(Dongsan Medical Center)
Moon Hong Kim(Korea Cancer Center Hosp.)
Woong Ju(Ewha Womans Univ. Mokdong Hosp.)
Hyun Hoon Chung(Seoul National Univ. Hosp.)
Yong Man Kim(Asan Medical Center)
Part Ⅱ. GOG & KGOG Protocol HPV Vaccine
12
17:35-17:45
GOG0237 Comparative analysis of CA-IX, p16, proliferative markers and human
papilloma virus (HPV) in the diagnosis of significant cervical lesions in patients with a
cytologic diagnosis of atypical glandular cells (AGC) (Shu-Yuan Liao)
Joo Hyun Nam (Asan Medical Center)
17:45-17:55
GOG9601 A phase I study of a human papillomavirus E7 lipopeptide vaccine for the treatment of
recurrent or persistent cervical cancer (Michael A. Steller)
Chi-Heum Cho (Dongsan Medical Center)
17:55-18:05
Investigation of changes in lesion, HPV viral load, and serum anti-HPV 16 and 18 VLPs after HPV
vaccination in CIN I patients (Seung Cheol Kim)
Young Tak Kim (Asan Medical Center)
18:05
Closing
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group-Reorganized on Jan. 2010
KGOG
Group President : Soon-Beom Kang, M.D. (Seoul National University Hospital)
Vice-President : 1) Joo-Hyun Nam, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
2) Hee-Sug Ryu, M.D. (Ajou University Medical Center)
Secretary General : Jae-Hoon Kim, M.D. (Kangnam Severance Hospital)
KGOG Administrative Office
# 102, 55-5 Nonhyun-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-010, Korea
Phone : (822) 512-5420 Fax : (822) 512-5421 E-mail : koreagynonco@hanmail.net Homepage : www.kgog.org
Appointing Committee
Seung-Jo Kim, M.D. (Bundang CHA Medical Center)
Sung-Eun Namkoong, M.D. (The Catholic University)
Jae-Wook Kim, M.D. (Myongji Hospital)
Eung Soo Lee, M.D. (Ilsan Paik Hospital)
Protocol Committee
Director : Kyung-Tai Kim, M.D. (Hanyang University Hospital)
Won-Gyu Kim, M.D. (Kosin University Gospel Hospital)
Young-Tae Kim, M.D. (Severance Hospital)
Sang-Yoon Park, M.D. (National Cancer Center)
Duk-Soo Bae, M.D. (Samsung Seoul Hospital)
Woong-Shick Ahn, M.D. (Seoul St. Mary's Hospital)
Soon-Do Cha, M.D. (Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center)
Sei-Jun Han, M.D. (Chosun University Hospital)
Young-Tak Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Joo-Hyun Nam, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Chan-Yong Park, M.D. (Gil Medical Center)
Yong-Sang Song, M.D. (Seoul National University Hospital)
Seon-Kyung Lee, M.D. (East-West Neo Medical Center)
Ho-Sun Choi, M.D. (Chonnam National University Hospital)
Audit
Ki-Tae Kim, M.D. (Pusan Paik Hospital)
Committee
Director : Hee-Sug Ryu, M.D. (Ajou University Medical Center)
1. Tumor Site Committees
1) Cervix, Vulva, Vagina TSC
Director : Seung-Cheol Kim, M.D. (Ewha Womans University Medical Center)
Members : Yong-Il Kwon, M.D. (Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital)
Young-Tak Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Tae-Jin Kim, M.D. (Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center)
Hong-Bae Kim, M.D. (Kangnam Sacreat Heart Hospital)
Geun-Ho Lee, M.D. (Seoul St. Mary's Hospital)
Jae-Kwan Lee, M.D. (Korea University Guro Hospital)
Jong-Min Lee, M.D. (East-West Neo Medical Center)
Cheon-Jun Lee, M.D. (Kosin University Gosple Hospital)
Seok-Chul Choi, M.D. (Cancer Center Hospital)
Cheol-Min Lee, M.D. (Sanggye Paik Hospital)
Yong-Beom Kim, M.D. (Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
Kwang-Beom Lee, M.D. (Gil Medical Center)
Suk-Jun Chang, M.D. (Ajou University Medical Center)
Dae-hoon Chung, M.D. (Pusan Paik Hospital)
2) Uterinecorpus-GTT TSC
Director : Jae-Weon Kim, M.D. (Seoul National University Hospital)
Members : Jae-Hoon Kim, M.D. (Kangnam Severance Hospital)
Dong-Choon Park, M.D. (St. Vincent’s Hospital)
Eun-Seop Song, M.D. (Inha University Hospital)
Nak-Woo Lee, M.D. (Korea University Ansan Hospital)
Jong-Hyeok Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Seok-Ju Seong, M.D. (CHA General Hospital International Clinic)
Hee-Sug Ryu, M.D. (Ajou University Medical Center)
13
Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group-Reorganized on Jan. 2010
KGOG
Sang-Hoon Kwon, M.D. (Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center)
Sung-Hoon Kim, M.D. (Severance Hospital)
Taek-Sang Lee, M.D. (Boramae Hospital)
3) Ovarian-Fallopian tube TSC
Director : Byoung-Gie Kim, M.D. (Sungkyunkwan University)
Members : Seok-Mo Kim, M.D. (Chonnam National University Medical School)
Sang-Young Ryu, M.D. (Cancer Center Hospital)
Chi-Heum Cho, M.D. (Keimyung University School of Medicine)
Moon-Seok Cha, M.D. (Dong-A University Medical Center)
Suk-Bong Koh, M.D. (Daegu Catholic University Medical Center)
Dae-Youn Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
2. Treatment Modality Committee
1) Chemotherapy TMC
Chief :
Hee-Sook Park, M.D. (Soonchunghyang University Hospital)
Members : Seok-Mo Kim, M.D. (Chonnam National University Medical School)
Young-Tae Kim, M.D. (Severance Hospital)
Sang-Young Ryu, M.D. (Cancer Center Hospital)
Jong-Min Lee, M.D. (Kyunghee University Medical Center)
Jin-Hyuk Choi, M.D. (Ajou University School of Medicine)
Yong-Man Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Chan Lee, M.D. (Bundang CHA Medical Center)
Woong Ju, M.D. (Ewha Womans University Medical Center)
Soo-Young Hur, M.D. (The Catholic University of Korea)
Jae-Whoan Koh, M.D. (Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital)
Tae-Joong Kim, M.D. (Sungkyunkwan University)
Young-Tak Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Jin-Hee Ahn, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Nam-Su Lee, M.D. (Soonchunhyang University)
Moon-Seok Cha, M.D. (Dong-A University Medical Center)
2) Radiotherapy TMC
Chief :
Kwan-Ho Cho, M.D. (Proton Therapy Center National Cancer Center)
Members : Jae-Weon Kim, M.D. (Seoul National University)
Joo-young Kim, M.D. (National Cancer Center)
Jin-Hee Kim, M.D. (Keimyung University)
Seong-Soo Shin, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Dae-Sik Yang, M.D. (Korea University Anam Hospital)
Hak-Jae Kim, M.D. (Seoul National University)
Hee-Sug Ryu, M.D. (Ajou University School of Medicine)
Kyung-Ja Lee, M.D. (College of Medicine Ewha Women's University)
Kyu-Chan Lee, M.D. (Gachon Medical School)
Mi-Son Chun, M.D. (Ajou University School of Medicine)
Ha-Chung Chun, M.D. (Hanyang University Hospital)
Chul-Koo Cho, M.D. (Cancer Center Hospital)
Seung-Jae Huh, M.D. (Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
3. Pathology Committee
Chief :
Kwang-Sun Suh, M.D. (Chungnam National University)
Members : Sun-Young Kwon, M.D. (Keimyung University)
Dong-Won Kim, M.D. (Soonchunhyang University Hospital)
Hy-Sook Kim, M.D. (Cheil General Hospital)
Moon-Hyang Park, M.D. (Hanyang University Hospital)
Sang Yong Song, M.D. (Samsung Medical Center)
Chong-Woo Yoo, M.D. (National Cancer Center)
Hee-Jae Joo, M.D. (Ajou University Medical Center)
Kyu-Rae Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
In-Sun Kim, M.D. (Korea University Guro Hospital)
Jong-Hee Nam, M.D. (Chonnam National University Medical School)
In-Ae Park, M.D. (Seoul National University Hospital)
Hee-Jeong Ahn, M.D. (Bundang CHA Medical Center)
Hye-Kyoung Yoon, M.D. (Inje University Pusan Paik Hospital)
4. Translational Research Committee
Chief :
Yong-Man Kim, M.D. (Asan Medical Center)
Members : Sokbom Kang, M.D. (National Cancer Center)
Yong-Il Kwon, M.D. (Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital)
Byoung-Gie Kim, M.D. (Sungkyunkwan University)
Jae-Hoon Kim, M.D. (Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Tae-Jin Kim, M.D. (Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center) Jae-Kwan Lee, M.D. (Korea University Guro Hospital)
Chi-Heum Cho, M.D. (Keimyung University School of Medicine)
Soo-Young Hur, M.D. (The Catholic University of Korea)
Taek-Sang Lee, M.D. (Boramae Hospital)
5. Statistics and Data Committee
Chief :
Byung-Ho Nam, Ph.D. (National Cancer Center)
6. International Collaboration Committee
*CRA :
14
Seon-Hee Kim, Jong-Soon Kim, Eun-Kyung Park
Asian Society of
Gynecologic Oncology (ASGO)
2 Biennial Meeting
nd
November 4~5, 2011, Seoul, Korea
ASGO Educational Meeting
July 31, 2010, Seoul, Korea
Homepage : www.asiansgo.org
E-mail : office@asiansgo.org
15
KGOG Administrative Office
# 102, 55-5 Nonhyun-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-010, Korea
Phone : (822) 512-5420 Fax : (822) 512-5421
E-mail : koreagynonco@hanmail.net Homepage : www.kgog.org