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.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of vertebral venous congestion (VVC) in patients with chemoport insertion, evaluate the imaging characteristics of nodular VVC, and identify the factors associated with VVC. Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study was based on follow-up contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) of 1412 adult patients who underwent chemoport insertion between January 2016 and December 2016. The prevalence of venous stenosis, reflux, and VVC were evaluated. The imaging features of nodular VVC, including specific locations within the vertebral body, were analyzed. To identify the factors associated with VVC, patients with VVC were compared with a subset of patients without VVC who had been followed up for > 3 years without developing VVC after chemoport insertion.Toward this, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: After excluding 333 patients, 1079 were analyzed (mean age ± standard deviation, 62.3 ± 11.6 years; 540 females).The prevalence of VVC was 5.8% (63/1079), with all patients (63/63) demonstrating vertebral venous reflux and 67% (42/63) with innominate vein stenosis. The median interval between chemoport insertion and VVC was 515 days (interquartile range, 204–881 days). The prevalence of nodular VVC was 1.5% (16/1079), with a mean size of 5.9 ± 3.1 mm and attenuation of 784 ± 162 HU. Nodular VVC tended to be located subcortically. Forty-four patients with VVC underwent CT examinations with contrast injections in both arms; the VVC disappeared in 70% (31/44) when the contrast was injected in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site. Bevacizumab use was independently associated with VVC (odds ratio, 3.45; P < 0.001). Conclusion The prevalence of VVC and nodular VVC was low in patients who underwent chemoport insertion. Nodular VVC was always accompanied by vertebral venous reflux and tended to be located subcortically. To avoid VVC, contrast injection in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site is preferred.

Purpose: Hypothalamic damage may increase the risk of adulthood obesity and cardiovascular disease in patients with craniopharyngioma. We evaluated the effects of hypothalamic involvement (HI) and growth hormone (GH) discontinuation on cardiovascular risk factors during the transition period in patients with childhood-onset craniopharyngioma. Methods: Thirty-three patients (17 males, 16 females) underwent retesting for adult GH deficiency (GHD) between 2005 and 2020 at Seoul National University Children's Hospital. Postoperative HI was graded by Puget's criteria and data regarding GH replacement were collected. At retesting, body mass index (BMI), fasting blood glucose, insulin, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, and blood pressure were assessed. Results: The mean age of commencement and discontinuation of GH replacement for childhood GHD was 10.0±3.6 and 15.3±3.1 years, respectively. The mean age at retesting for adult GHD was 17.7±2.5 years. When patients were categorized by post-GH discontinuation duration, those with durations >6 months (n=27) showed lower HDL-C levels than those with <6 months (P=0.037). Patients with extensive HI (n=16) had higher BMI z-scores than did those with no HI or mild HI (P=0.020). Both the extent of HI and longer post-GH discontinuation duration were significantly predictive for decreased HDL-C levels (P<0.05, for both). Conclusion The extent of HI and GH discontinuation duration during the transition period can increase cardiovascular risks in patients with childhood-onset craniopharyngioma.

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic destructive inflammatory bowel disease that affects young people and is associated with significant morbidity. The clinical spectrum and disease course of CD are heterogeneous and often difficult to predict based on the initial presentation. In this article, changes in the disease location, behavior, clinical course during long-term follow-up, and predictive factors are reviewed. Generally, four different patterns of clinical course are discussed: remission, stable disease, chronic relapsing disease, and chronic refractory disease. Understanding the long-term disease course of CD is mandatory to reveal the underlying pathophysiology of the disease and to move toward a more optimistic disease course, such as remission or stability, and less adverse outcomes or devastating sequelae.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate long-term post-discontinuation outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been treated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNF-αi) which was then discontinued. Methods: Sixty Korean patients with RA who participated in a 5-year GO-BEFORE and GO-FORWARD extension trials were included in this retrospective study. Golimumab was deliberately discontinued after the extension study (baseline). Patients were then followed by their rheumatologists. We reviewed their medical records for 2 years (max 28 months) following golimumab discontinuation. Patients were divided into a maintained benefit (MB) group and a loss-of-benefit (LB) group based on treatment pattern after golimumab discontinuation. The LB group included patients whose conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s) were stepped-up or added/switched (SC) and those who restarted biologic therapy (RB). Results: The mean age of patients at baseline was 56.5 years and 55 (91.7%) were females. At the end of follow-up, 23 (38.3%) patients remained in the MB group. In the LB group, 75.7% and 24.3% were assigned into SC and RB subgroups, respectively. Fifty percent of patients lost MB after 23.3 months. Demographics and clinical variables at baseline were comparable between MB and LB groups except for age, C-reactive protein level, and corticosteroid use. Restarting biologic therapy was associated with swollen joint count (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 3.55) and disease duration (adjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.23) at baseline. Conclusions Treatment strategies after discontinuing TNF-αi are needed to better maintain disease control and quality of life of patients with RA.

Objective: To investigate the clinical impact of a quality improvement program including dedicated emergency radiology personnel (QIP-DERP) on the management of emergency surgical patients in the emergency department (ED). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study identified all adult patients (n = 3667) who underwent preoperative body CT, for which written radiology reports were generated, and who subsequently underwent non-elective surgery between 2007 and 2018 in the ED of a single urban academic tertiary medical institution. The study cohort was divided into periods before and after the initiation of QIP-DERP. We matched the control group patients (i.e., before QIP-DERP) to the QIP-DERP group patients using propensity score (PS), with a 1:2 matching ratio for the main analysis and a 1:1 ratio for sub-analyses separately for daytime (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays) and after-hours. The primary outcome was timing of emergency surgery (TES), which was defined as the time from ED arrival to surgical intervention. The secondary outcomes included ED length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate. Results: According to the PS-matched analysis, compared with the control group, QIP-DERP significantly decreased the median TES from 16.7 hours (interquartile range, 9.4–27.5 hours) to 11.6 hours (6.6–21.9 hours) (p < 0.001) and the ICU admission rate from 33.3% (205/616) to 23.9% (295/1232) (p < 0.001). During after-hours, the QIP-DERP significantly reduced median TES from 19.9 hours (12.5–30.1 hours) to 9.6 hours (5.7–19.1 hours) (p < 0.001), median ED LOS from 9.1 hours (5.6–16.5 hours) to 6.7 hours (4.9–11.3 hours) (p < 0.001), and ICU admission rate from 35.5% (108/304) to 22.0% (67/304) (p < 0.001). Conclusion QIP-DERP implementation improved the quality of emergency surgical management in the ED by reducing TES, ED LOS, and ICU admission rate, particularly during after-hours.