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.

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 Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Background and Objectives: There is no clear standard for the difference in the thresholds of auditory brainstem response (ABR) and pure tone audiometry (PTA) when using ABR to evaluate the reliability of PTA. Therefore, we assessed the difference in the thresholds of ABR and PTA for each frequency. Consequently, we present here the actual difference values between the two tests that can be used as a reference in the clinic.Subjects and Method We retrospectively assessed the audiometry results of 129 ears. Ears in which the hearing thresholds of each frequency continuously declined were classified as the downward group. We compared the average of differences between the two tests by frequency. The differences were compared for each hearing level from 50 dB or higher. Results: For all ears, the appropriate range of difference value was ±5 dB at 2 kHz. At 1 kHz, the ABR threshold was 10 dB higher than PTA, and it was 10 dB less than PTA at 4 kHz. In the downward group, the difference value increased by 10 dB at 1 kHz and 4 kHz. In the subgroups at each hearing level, the difference value showed similar results (p<0.05). Conclusion The difference in the threshold, regardless of the severity or tendency of hearing loss, was the smallest at 2 kHz and the range was ±5 dB. ABR was 10 dB higher at 1 kHz and and 10 dB lower at 4 kHz than PTA. In the downward group, the difference at 1 kHz and 4 kHz increased by 10 dB each.

Background and Objectives: Patients with hearing loss and tinnitus experience difficulty in engaging in daily conversations. However, only few studies have examined how tinnitus affects individual speech discrimination to comprehend speech. This study aimed to analyze the correlation between tinnitus frequency and speech discrimination in patients with hearing loss and tinnitus.Subjects and Method A total of 275 ears with hearing impairment were retrospectively analyzed via audiometry and tinnitogram. The ears were divided into three groups depending on the frequency of their tinnitus. Average pure tone audiometry (PTA), hearing threshold of tinnitus frequency, speech discrimination test (SDT), degree of discrepancy between tinnitus frequency and worst PTA frequency were collected and compared among the three groups. Results: No significant difference was observed in PTA in the three patient groups. Hearing threshold of tinnitus frequency was the highest at 78.27 dB in the high-frequency group and the lowest at 45.14 dB in the low-frequency group. SDT was significantly lower (53.69%) in the low-frequency group. The correlation between tinnitus loudness and SDT was the strongest in the low-frequency group. The degree of discrepancy between tinnitus frequency and worst PTA frequency was also significantly observed in the low-frequency group. Conclusion Patients who are severely affected by tinnitus are found to have significant discrepancy between tinnitus frequency and worst PTA frequency, indicating decreased SDT.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between reduced glutathione (GSH), a key molecule of the antioxidant defense system in the blood, and glutathione reductase (GR), which reduces oxidized glutathione (glutathione disulfide [GSSG]) to GSH and maintains the redox balance, with the prevalence of Alzheimer’s dementia and cognitive decline. Methods: In all, 20 participants with Alzheimer’s dementia who completed the third follow-up clinical evaluation over 6 years were selected, and 20 participants with normal cognition were selected after age and sex matching. The GSH and GR concentrations were the independent variables. Clinical diagnosis and neurocognitive test scores were the dependent variables indicating cognitive status. Results: The higher the level of GR, the greater the possibility of having normal cognition than of developing Alzheimer’s dementia. Additionally, the higher the level of GR, the higher the neurocognitive test scores. However, this association was not significant for GSH. After 6 years, the conversion rate from normal cognition to cognitive impairment was significantly higher in the lower 50th percentile of the GR group than in the upper 50th percentile. Conclusion The higher the GR, the lower the prevalence of Alzheimer’s dementia and incidence of cognitive impairment and the higher the cognitive test scores. Therefore, GR is a potential protective biomarker against Alzheimer’s dementia and cognitive decline.

Background/Aims: The Genoss DES™ is a novel, biodegradable, polymer-coated, sirolimus-eluting stent with a cobalt- chromium stent platform and thin strut. Although the safety and effectiveness of this stent have been previously investigated, real-world clinical outcomes data are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this prospective, multicenter trial was to evaluate the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Genoss DES™ in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: The Genoss DES registry is a prospective, single-arm, observational trial for evaluation of clinical outcomes after Genoss DES™ implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from 17 sites in South Korea. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Results: A total of 1,999 patients (66.4 ± 11.1 years of age; 72.8% male) were analyzed. At baseline, 62.8% and 36.7% of patients had hypertension and diabetes, respectively. The implanted stent number, diameter, and length per patient were 1.5 ± 0.8, 3.1 ± 0.5 mm, and 37.0 ± 25.0 mm, respectively. The primary endpoint occurred in 1.8% patients, with a cardiac death rate of 1.1%, target vessel-related MI rate of 0.2%, and clinically driven TLR rate of 0.8%. Conclusions In this real-world registry, the Genoss DES™ demonstrated excellent safety and effectiveness at 12 months among all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. These findings suggest that the Genoss DES™ may be a viable treatment option for patients with coronary artery disease.