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: We aimed to assess the humoral response to and reactogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination according to the vaccine type and to analyze factors associated with immunogenicity in actively treated solid cancer patients (CPs). Materials and Methods: Prospective cohorts of CPs, undergoing anticancer treatment, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were established. The participants had no history of previous COVID-19 and received either mRNA-based or adenovirus vector–based (AdV) vaccines as the primary series. Blood samples were collected before the first vaccination and after 2 weeks for each dose vaccination. Spike-specific binding antibodies (bAbs) in all participants and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) wild-type, Delta, and Omicron variants in CPs were analyzed and presented as the geometric mean titer. Results: Age-matched 20 HCWs and 118 CPs were included in the analysis. The bAb seroconversion rate and antibody concentrations after the first vaccination were significantly lower in CPs than in HCWs. After the third vaccination, antibody levels in CPs with a primary series of AdV were comparable to those in HCWs, but nAb titers against the Omicron variant did not quantitatively increase in CPs with AdV vaccine as the primary series. The incidence and severity of adverse reactions post-vaccination were similar between CPs and HCWs. Conclusion CPs displayed delayed humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The booster dose elicited comparable bAb concentrations between CPs and HCWs, regardless of the primary vaccine type. Neutralization against the Omicron variant was not robustly elicited following the booster dose in some CPs, implying the need for additional interventions to protect them from COVID-19.

Purpose: There are clinical unmet needs in predicting therapeutic response and precise strategy for the patient with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). We aimed to identify genomic alterations predicting therapeutic response and resistance to gemcitabine and cisplatin (Gem/Cis)-based chemotherapy in advanced BTC. Materials and Methods: Genomic analysis of advanced BTC multi-institutional cohorts was performed using targeted panel sequencing. Genomic alterations were analyzed integrating patients’ clinicopathologic data, including clinical outcomes of Gem/Cis-based therapy. Significance of genetic alterations was validated using clinical next-generation sequencing (NGS) cohorts from public repositories and drug sensitivity data from cancer cell lines. Results: 193 BTC patients from three cancer centers were analyzed. Most frequent genomic alterations were TP53 (55.5%), KRAS (22.8%), ARID1A (10.4%) alterations, and ERBB2 amplification (9.8%). Among 177 patients with BTC receiving Gem/Cis-based chemotherapy, ARID1A alteration was the only independent predictive molecular marker of primary resistance showing disease progression for 1st-line chemotherapy in the multivariate regression model (odds ratio, 3.12; p=0.046). In addition, ARID1A alteration was significantly correlated with inferior progression-free survival on Gem/Cis-based chemotherapy in the overall patient population (p=0.033) and in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) (p=0.041). External validation using public repository NGS revealed that ARID1A mutation was a significant predictor for poor survival in BTC patients. Investigation of multi-OMICs drug sensitivity data from cancer cell lines revealed that cisplatin-resistance was exclusively observed in ARID1A mutant bile duct cancer cells. Conclusion Integrative analysis with genomic alterations and clinical outcomes of the first-line Gem/Cis-based chemotherapy in advanced BTC revealed that patients with ARID1Aalterations showed a significant worse clinical outcome, especially in extrahepatic CCA. Well-designed prospective studies are mandatory to validate the predictive role of ARID1Amutation.

Background/Aims: Narrow band imaging provides an accurate diagnosis of colonic polyps.However, these diagnostic modalities are not used as standard endoscopic tools in most institutions. This study aims to investigate whether the chicken skin mucosa (CSM) surrounding the colon polyp yields additional information about colorectal polyps, including histological differentiation of neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps, under conventional white light colonoscopy. Methods: This study prospectively observed 173 patients who underwent endoscopic polypectomy and reviewed the clinical data and pathologic reports of 313 polyps from a university hospital. Two endoscopists each performed colonoscopy and polypectomy and assessed the CSM. The association between CSM surrounding colorectal polyps and histology was analyzed. Results: The majority (91.3%) of CSM-positive polyps were neoplastic (sensitivity, 37.90%;specificity, 86.15%; p<0.001). In logistic regression, the neoplastic polyps were associated with positive CSM (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 9.25; p=0.007), protruded polyps (adjusted OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 1.65 to 17.23; p=0.008), and neoplastic histology–associated pit pattern (pit III, IV, and V) (adjusted OR, 10.14; 95% CI, 4.85 to 22.12; p=0.000). Furthermore, advanced adenomas were associated with positive CSM (adjusted OR, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.77 to 20.28; p=0.005), protruded polyps (adjusted OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.15 to 9.74; p= 0.026), and ≥10 cm polyp size (adjusted OR, 18.56; 95% CI, 3.89 to 147.01; p=0.001). Conclusions Neoplastic and advanced polyps were associated with CSM-positive polyps.These findings suggest that CSM is a useful marker in differentiating neoplastic polyps and advanced polyps under conventional white colonoscopy.

Purpose: To assess conventional MRI features associated with residual soft-tissue sarcomas following unplanned excision (UPE), and to compare the diagnostic performance of conventional MRI only with that of MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for residual tumors after UPE. Materials and Methods: We included 103 consecutive patients who had received UPE of a soft-tissue sarcoma with wide excision of the tumor bed between December 2013 and December 2019 and who also underwent conventional MRI and DWI in this retrospective study. The presence of focal enhancement, soft-tissue edema, fascial enhancement, fluid collections, and hematoma on MRI including DWI was reviewed by two musculoskeletal radiologists. We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify the most significant MRI features. We compared the diagnostic performances of conventional MRI and added DWI using the McNemar test. Results: Residual tumors were present in 69 (66.9%) of 103 patients, whereas no tumors were found in 34 (33.1%) patients. CART showed focal enhancement to be the most significant predictor of residual tumors and correctly predicted residual tumors in 81.6% (84/103) and 78.6% (81/103) of patients for Reader 1 and Reader 2, respectively. Compared with conventional MRI only, the addition of DWI for Reader 1 improved specificity (32.8% vs. 56%, 33.3% vs. 63.0%, P < 0.05), decreased sensitivity (96.8% vs. 84.1%, 98.7% vs. 76.7%, P < 0.05), without a difference in diagnostic accuracy (76.7% vs. 74.8%, 72.9% vs. 71.4%) in total and in subgroups. For Reader 2, diagnostic performance was not significantly different between the sets of MRI (P > 0.05). Conclusion After UPE of a soft-tissue sarcoma, the presence or absence of a focal enhancement was the most significant MRI finding predicting residual tumors. MRI provided good diagnostic accuracy for detecting residual tumors, and the addition of DWI to conventional MRI may increase specificity.