Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: The number of patients presenting with vaccination-related cardiovascular symptoms after receiving mRNA vaccines (mRNA-VRCS) is increasing. We investigated the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs), including myocarditis and pericarditis, in patients with mRNA-VRCS after receiving BNT162b2-Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273-Moderna vaccines. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS who visited the outpatient clinic of two tertiary medical centers. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, echocardiographic findings, and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated. VAE was defined as myocarditis or pericarditis in patients after mRNA vaccination. Clinical outcomes during short-term follow-up, including emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death, were also assessed among the patients. Results: A total of 952 patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS were included in this study, with 89.7% receiving Pfizer-BioNTech and 10.3% receiving Moderna vaccines. The mean duration from vaccination to symptom was 5.6±7.5 days. VAEs, including acute myocarditis and acute pericarditis, were confirmed in 11 (1.2%) and 10 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The VAE group showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiography changes, and ST-T segment changes. During the short-term follow-up period of 3 months, the VAE group showed a higher hospitalization rate compared to the control group; there was no significant difference in ER visit (p=0.320) or mortality rates (p>0.999). Conclusion Amongst the patients who experienced mRNA-VRCS, the total incidence of VAEs, including acute myocarditis and pericarditis, was 2.2%. Patients with VAEs showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiographic changes, and ST-T segment changes compared to those without VAEs. With or without the cardiovascular events, the prognosis in patients with mRNA-VRCS was favorable.

Purpose: The number of patients presenting with vaccination-related cardiovascular symptoms after receiving mRNA vaccines (mRNA-VRCS) is increasing. We investigated the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs), including myocarditis and pericarditis, in patients with mRNA-VRCS after receiving BNT162b2-Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273-Moderna vaccines. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS who visited the outpatient clinic of two tertiary medical centers. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, echocardiographic findings, and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated. VAE was defined as myocarditis or pericarditis in patients after mRNA vaccination. Clinical outcomes during short-term follow-up, including emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death, were also assessed among the patients. Results: A total of 952 patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS were included in this study, with 89.7% receiving Pfizer-BioNTech and 10.3% receiving Moderna vaccines. The mean duration from vaccination to symptom was 5.6±7.5 days. VAEs, including acute myocarditis and acute pericarditis, were confirmed in 11 (1.2%) and 10 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The VAE group showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiography changes, and ST-T segment changes. During the short-term follow-up period of 3 months, the VAE group showed a higher hospitalization rate compared to the control group; there was no significant difference in ER visit (p=0.320) or mortality rates (p>0.999). Conclusion Amongst the patients who experienced mRNA-VRCS, the total incidence of VAEs, including acute myocarditis and pericarditis, was 2.2%. Patients with VAEs showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiographic changes, and ST-T segment changes compared to those without VAEs. With or without the cardiovascular events, the prognosis in patients with mRNA-VRCS was favorable.

Purpose: The number of patients presenting with vaccination-related cardiovascular symptoms after receiving mRNA vaccines (mRNA-VRCS) is increasing. We investigated the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs), including myocarditis and pericarditis, in patients with mRNA-VRCS after receiving BNT162b2-Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273-Moderna vaccines. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS who visited the outpatient clinic of two tertiary medical centers. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, echocardiographic findings, and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated. VAE was defined as myocarditis or pericarditis in patients after mRNA vaccination. Clinical outcomes during short-term follow-up, including emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death, were also assessed among the patients. Results: A total of 952 patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS were included in this study, with 89.7% receiving Pfizer-BioNTech and 10.3% receiving Moderna vaccines. The mean duration from vaccination to symptom was 5.6±7.5 days. VAEs, including acute myocarditis and acute pericarditis, were confirmed in 11 (1.2%) and 10 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The VAE group showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiography changes, and ST-T segment changes. During the short-term follow-up period of 3 months, the VAE group showed a higher hospitalization rate compared to the control group; there was no significant difference in ER visit (p=0.320) or mortality rates (p>0.999). Conclusion Amongst the patients who experienced mRNA-VRCS, the total incidence of VAEs, including acute myocarditis and pericarditis, was 2.2%. Patients with VAEs showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiographic changes, and ST-T segment changes compared to those without VAEs. With or without the cardiovascular events, the prognosis in patients with mRNA-VRCS was favorable.

Purpose: The number of patients presenting with vaccination-related cardiovascular symptoms after receiving mRNA vaccines (mRNA-VRCS) is increasing. We investigated the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs), including myocarditis and pericarditis, in patients with mRNA-VRCS after receiving BNT162b2-Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273-Moderna vaccines. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS who visited the outpatient clinic of two tertiary medical centers. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, echocardiographic findings, and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated. VAE was defined as myocarditis or pericarditis in patients after mRNA vaccination. Clinical outcomes during short-term follow-up, including emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death, were also assessed among the patients. Results: A total of 952 patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS were included in this study, with 89.7% receiving Pfizer-BioNTech and 10.3% receiving Moderna vaccines. The mean duration from vaccination to symptom was 5.6±7.5 days. VAEs, including acute myocarditis and acute pericarditis, were confirmed in 11 (1.2%) and 10 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The VAE group showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiography changes, and ST-T segment changes. During the short-term follow-up period of 3 months, the VAE group showed a higher hospitalization rate compared to the control group; there was no significant difference in ER visit (p=0.320) or mortality rates (p>0.999). Conclusion Amongst the patients who experienced mRNA-VRCS, the total incidence of VAEs, including acute myocarditis and pericarditis, was 2.2%. Patients with VAEs showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiographic changes, and ST-T segment changes compared to those without VAEs. With or without the cardiovascular events, the prognosis in patients with mRNA-VRCS was favorable.

Purpose: The number of patients presenting with vaccination-related cardiovascular symptoms after receiving mRNA vaccines (mRNA-VRCS) is increasing. We investigated the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs), including myocarditis and pericarditis, in patients with mRNA-VRCS after receiving BNT162b2-Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273-Moderna vaccines. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS who visited the outpatient clinic of two tertiary medical centers. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, echocardiographic findings, and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated. VAE was defined as myocarditis or pericarditis in patients after mRNA vaccination. Clinical outcomes during short-term follow-up, including emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death, were also assessed among the patients. Results: A total of 952 patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS were included in this study, with 89.7% receiving Pfizer-BioNTech and 10.3% receiving Moderna vaccines. The mean duration from vaccination to symptom was 5.6±7.5 days. VAEs, including acute myocarditis and acute pericarditis, were confirmed in 11 (1.2%) and 10 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The VAE group showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiography changes, and ST-T segment changes. During the short-term follow-up period of 3 months, the VAE group showed a higher hospitalization rate compared to the control group; there was no significant difference in ER visit (p=0.320) or mortality rates (p>0.999). Conclusion Amongst the patients who experienced mRNA-VRCS, the total incidence of VAEs, including acute myocarditis and pericarditis, was 2.2%. Patients with VAEs showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiographic changes, and ST-T segment changes compared to those without VAEs. With or without the cardiovascular events, the prognosis in patients with mRNA-VRCS was favorable.

Dysphagia often occurs in cancer patients. The primary causes of dysphagia in cancer patients include new local dissemination of cancer cells or metastatic brain lesions, which needs to be accurately differentiated. Dermatomyositis is often associated with cancer and may manifest before or after the cancer diagnosis. Although early diagnosis and immunotherapy can improve dermatomyositis, its identification may be delayed in cancer patients due to complex comorbidities. We report a case of a 33-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer who presented with dysphagia. The primary consideration was metastatic lesions. However, subsequent diagnosis revealed dermatomyositis.Symptoms, including facial swelling, dysarthria, and dysphagia, emerged 26 months after the cancer diagnosis. No new metastatic lesion was identified through imaging studies. A videofluoroscopic study (VFSS) revealed velopharyngeal insufficiency, reduced pharyngeal contraction, and excessive pharyngeal residue with silent aspiration. After a combination of further clinical, laboratory, and muscle biopsy findings, dermatomyositis was identified as the actual cause of dysphagia. The patient was treated with immunosuppressive and rehabilitative swallowing therapies, which improved her symptoms. This case underscores the critical importance of accurately identifying and promptly treating dysphagia in cancer patients. It particularly emphasizes the need to recognize dermatomyositis as a potential differential diagnosis in cancer patients presenting with dysphagia.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.