During the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Korean Cancer Association, articles published in Cancer Research and Treatment from 2004 to 2023 were assessed based on the subject and design of each study. Based on this analysis, trends in domestic cancer research were inferred and directions were suggested for the future development of Cancer Research and Treatment.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

During the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Korean Cancer Association, articles published in Cancer Research and Treatment from 2004 to 2023 were assessed based on the subject and design of each study. Based on this analysis, trends in domestic cancer research were inferred and directions were suggested for the future development of Cancer Research and Treatment.

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.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

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.