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.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Objective: To investigate the imaging characteristics of large duct pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LD-PDAC) on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients with LD-PDAC (63.2 ± 9.7 years) were retrospectively evaluated. Tumor morphology on CT and MRI (predominantly solid mass vs. solid mass with prominent cysts vs. predominantly cystic mass) was evaluated.Additionally, the visibility, quantity, shape (oval vs. branching vs. irregular), and MRI signal intensity of neoplastic cysts within the LD-PDAC were investigated. The radiological diagnoses rendered for LD-PDAC in radiology reports were reviewed. Results: LD-PDAC was more commonly observed as a solid mass with prominent cysts (45.7% [16/35] on CT and 37.1% [13/35] on MRI) or a predominantly cystic mass (20.0% [7/35] on CT and 40.0% [14/35] on MRI) and less commonly as a predominantly solid mass on CT (34.3% [12/35]) and MRI (22.9% [8/35]). The tumor morphology on imaging was significantly associated with the size of the cancer gland on histopathological examination (P = 0.020 [CT] and 0.013 [MRI]). Neoplastic cysts were visible in 88.6% (31/35) and 91.4% (32/35) of the LD-PDAC cases on CT and MRI, respectively. The cysts appeared as branching (51.6% [16/35] on CT and 59.4% [19/35] on MRI) or oval shapes (45.2% [14/35] on CT and 31.2% [10/35] on MRI) with fluid-like MRI signal intensity. In the radiology reports, 10 LD-PDAC cases (28.6%) were misinterpreted as diseases other than typical PDAC, particularly intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Conclusion LD-PDAC frequently appears as a solid mass with prominent cysts or as a predominantly cystic mass on CT and MRI. Radiologists should be familiar with the imaging features of LD-PDAC to avoid misdiagnosis.

Background/Aims: Sarcopenia negatively affects the prognosis of cirrhotic patients, but clinical implications of changes in muscle mass remain unclear. We aimed to elucidate its role in the prognosis of outpatients with cirrhosis. Methods: Patients with cirrhosis who underwent annual abdominal computed tomography (CT) for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance were included in the prospective cohort. The L3 skeletal muscle index (SMI) was adopted as a proxy for the amount of skeletal muscle, and the rate of SMI change between inclusion and after 1 year (ΔSMI/yr%) was calculated. Results: In total, 595 patients underwent a second CT after 1 year. Among them, 109 and 64 patients had sarcopenia and Child-Pugh class B/C decompensation at inclusion, which changed to 103 and 45 at the 1-year follow-up, respectively. During a median follow-up of 30.1 months after 1 year, 86 patients had at least one cirrhosis complication, and 18 died or received liver transplantation. In the development of cirrhosis complications, ΔSMI/yr% was independently associated, even after adjusting for the Child-Pugh and model for end stage liver disease (MELD)-Na scores. In addition, ΔSMI/yr% showed a good predictive performance for the development of cirrhosis complications within 6 months after 1-year follow-up in all subgroups, with a cut-off of -2.62 (sensitivity, 83.9%; specificity, 74.5%) in the overall population. SMI at 1-year and Child-Pugh score were independent factors associated with survival. In addition, changes in sarcopenia status significantly stratified survival. Conclusion ΔSMI/yr% was a good predictor of the development of cirrhosis complications in outpatients with cirrhosis, independent of Child-Pugh and MELD scores.

Background: and Purpose The aim of this study was to survey the expert opinions on treatments for convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) and nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) in adults. Methods: Forty-two South Korean epileptologists participated in this survey. They completed an online questionnaire regarding various patient scenarios and evaluated the appropriateness of medications used to treat CSE and NCSE. Results: Initial treatment with a benzodiazepine (BZD) followed by either a second BZD or an antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy was the preferred treatment strategy. More than two-thirds of the experts used a second BZD when the first one failed, and consensus was reached for 84.8% of the survey items. The preferred BZD was intravenous (IV) lorazepam for the initial treatment of status epilepticus. IV fosphenytoin and IV levetiracetam were chosen for AED monotherapy after the failure of BZD. The treatments for NCSE were similar to those for CSE. Continuous IV midazolam infusion was the treatment of choice for iatrogenic coma in refractory CSE, but other AEDs were preferred over iatrogenic coma in refractory NCSE. Conclusions The results of this survey are consistent with previous guidelines, and can be cautiously applied in clinical practice when treating patients with CSE or NCSE.

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most serious neurologic emergencies. SE is a condition that encompasses a broad range of semiologic subtypes and heterogeneous etiologies. The treatment of SE primarily involves the management of the underlying etiology and the use of antiepileptic drug therapy to rapidly terminate seizure activities. The Drug Committee of the Korean Epilepsy Society performed a review of existing guidelines and literature with the aim of providing practical recommendations for antiepileptic drug therapy. This article is one of a series of review articles by the Drug Committee and it summarizes staged antiepileptic drug therapy for SE. While evidence of good quality supports the use of benzodiazepines as the first-line treatment of SE, such evidence informing the administration of second- or third-line treatments is lacking; hence, the recommendations presented herein concerning the treatment of established and refractory SE are based on case series and expert opinions. The choice of antiepileptic drugs in each stage should consider the characteristics and circumstances of each patient, as well as their estimated benefit and risk to them. In tandem with the antiepileptic drug therapy, careful searching for and treatment of the underlying etiology are required.