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.

Concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines against the rapidly spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are increasing. This study aimed to assess neutralizing antibody activity against the wild-type (BetaCoV/Korea/ KCDC03/2020), delta, and omicron variants after full primary and booster vaccinations with BNT162b2. A plaque reduction neutralization test was employed to determine 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) titers in serum samples. ND 50 titers against the omicron variant (median [interquartile range], 5.3 [< 5.0–12.7]) after full primary vaccination were lower than those against the wild-type (144.8 [44.7–294.0]) and delta (24.3 [14.3–81.1]) variants.Furthermore, 19/30 participants (63.3%) displayed lower ND 50 titers than the detection threshold (< 10.0) against omicron after full primary vaccination. However, the booster vaccine significantly increased ND 50 titers against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020, delta, and omicron, although titers against omicron remained lower than those against the other variants (P < 0.001). Our study suggests that booster vaccination with BNT162b2 significantly increases humoral immunity against the omicron variant.

Evidence of the ethical appropriateness and clinical benefits of shared decision-making (SDM) are accumulating. This study aimed to not only identify physicians’ perspectives on SDM, and practices related to end-of-life care in particular, but also to gauge the effect of SDM education on physicians in Korea. Methods: A 14-item questionnaire survey using a modified Delphi process was delivered to nephrologists and internal medicine trainees at 17 university hospitals. Results: A total of 309 physicians completed the survey. Although respondents reported that 69.9% of their practical decisions were made using SDM, 59.9% reported that it is not being applied appropriately. Only 12.3% of respondents had received education on SDM as part of their training. The main obstacles to appropriate SDM were identified as lack of time (46.0%), educational materials and tools (29.4%), and education on SDM (24.3%). Although only a few respondents had received training on SDM, the proportion of those who thought they were using SDM appropriately in actual practice was high; the proportion of those who chose lack of time and education as factors that hindered the proper application of SDM was low. Conclusion: The majority of respondents believed that SDM was not being implemented properly in Korea, despite its use in actual practice. To improve the effectiveness of SDM in the Korean medical system, appropriate training programs and supplemental policies that guarantee sufficient application time are required.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to verify the usefulness of Centor scores to diagnose the Group A Streptococcal pharyngitis. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: The subjects of this study were 379 patients who had been examined by the rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for Group A Streptococcus. We analyzed their medical records and laboratory test results retrospectively and compared the results of Centor symptom scores with those of RADT. Then we analyzed the association of RADT, the Centor score and the laboratory test results statistically. RESULTS: There were no correlation between the RADT results and fever, cough, tonsillar enlargement, nasal symptoms, myalgia or chilling (p>0.05). In the RADT positive group, there were more patients with tonsillar exudate, neck lymph node enlargement, tenderness and pharyngeal abscess formation significantly (p<0.05). The Centor score and C-reactive protein were significantly higher in the RADT positive group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that Centor symptom scores can be used to determine which antibiotics to use. The Centor score system can help reduce medical costs and detect the problematic Group A Streptococcal pharyngitis.
Abscess ; Anti-Bacterial Agents ; C-Reactive Protein ; Cough ; Decision Making ; Diagnosis ; Exudates and Transudates ; Fever ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes ; Medical Records ; Methods ; Myalgia ; Neck ; Pharyngitis ; Retrospective Studies ; Streptococcus ; Streptococcus pyogenes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to verify the usefulness of Centor scores to diagnose the Group A Streptococcal pharyngitis.SUBJECTS AND METHOD: The subjects of this study were 379 patients who had been examined by the rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for Group A Streptococcus. We analyzed their medical records and laboratory test results retrospectively and compared the results of Centor symptom scores with those of RADT. Then we analyzed the association of RADT, the Centor score and the laboratory test results statistically. RESULTS: There were no correlation between the RADT results and fever, cough, tonsillar enlargement, nasal symptoms, myalgia or chilling (p>0.05). In the RADT positive group, there were more patients with tonsillar exudate, neck lymph node enlargement, tenderness and pharyngeal abscess formation significantly (p<0.05). The Centor score and C-reactive protein were significantly higher in the RADT positive group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that Centor symptom scores can be used to determine which antibiotics to use. The Centor score system can help reduce medical costs and detect the problematic Group A Streptococcal pharyngitis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement is challenging, many recent studies have reported promising outcomes regarding technical success and endoscopic re-intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the technical accessibility of stent-in-stent placement using large cell-type stents in patients with inoperable malignant hilar biliary obstruction. METHODS: Forty-three patients with inoperable malignant hilar biliary obstruction from four academic centers were prospectively enrolled from March 2013 to June 2015. RESULTS: Bilateral stent-in-stent placement using two large cell-type stents was successfully performed in 88.4% of the patients (38/43). In four of the five cases with technical failure, the delivery sheath of the second stent became caught in the hook-cross-type vertex of the large cell of the first stent, and subsequent attempts to pass a guidewire and stent assembly through the mesh failed. Functional success was achieved in all cases of technical success. Stent occlusion occurred in 63.2% of the patients (24/38), with a median patient survival of 300 days. The median stent patency was 198 days. The stent patency rate was 82.9%, 63.1%, and 32.1% at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, respectively. Endoscopic re-intervention was performed in 14 patients, whereas 10 underwent percutaneous drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Large cell-type stents for endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement had acceptable functional success and stent patency when technically successful. However, the technical difficulty associated with the entanglement of the second stent delivery sheath in the hook-cross-type vertex of the first stent may preclude large cell-type stents from being considered as a dedicated standard tool for stent-in-stent placement.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Cholestasis, Intrahepatic ; Drainage ; Humans ; Klatskin Tumor ; Prospective Studies* ; Self Expandable Metallic Stents ; Stents*