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.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) were more susceptible to poor outcomes owing to respiratory muscle weakness and immunotherapy. Several studies conducted in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic reported higher mortality in patients with MG compared to the general population. This study aimed to investigate the clinical course and prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with MG and to compare these parameters between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in South Korea. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study, which was conducted at 14 tertiary hospitals in South Korea, reviewed the medical records and identified MG patients who contracted COVID-19 between February 2022 and April 2022. The demographic and clinical characteristics associated with MG and vaccination status were collected. The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection and MG were investigated and compared between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: Ninety-two patients with MG contracted COVID-19 during the study. Nine (9.8%) patients required hospitalization, 4 (4.3%) of whom were admitted to the intensive care unit. Seventy-five of 92 patients were vaccinated before contracting COVID-19 infection, and 17 were not. During the COVID-19 infection, 6 of 17 (35.3%) unvaccinated patients were hospitalized, whereas 3 of 75 (4.0%) vaccinated patients were hospitalized (P < 0.001). The frequencies of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.019 and P = 0.032, respectively). The rate of MG deterioration was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.041). Logistic regression after weighting revealed that the risk of hospitalization and MG deterioration after COVID-19 infection was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients. Conclusion This study suggests that the clinical course and prognosis of patients with MG who contracted COVID-19 during the dominance of the omicron variant of COVID-19 may be milder than those at the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic when vaccination was unavailable. Vaccination may reduce the morbidity of COVID-19 in patients with MG and effectively prevent MG deterioration induced by COVID-19 infection.

Purpose: This study examined the factors affecting valgus deformities after arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) in lateral joint-depression tibial plateau fractures. Materials and Methods: Patients with lateral joint-depression tibial plateau fractures treated with ARIF were assessed retrospectively. The radiological evaluations included the articular depression distance (ADD) and the lateral plateau widening distance (LPWD) on preoperative and postoperative computed tomography. A postoperative valgus deformity was defined as valgus malalignment (mechanical axis ≥3°) and valgus deviation (Δmechanical axis of the operated knee from the healthy knee of ≥5°). Subgroup analyses based on a postoperative valgus deformity were performed to compare the clinical outcomes, including the range of motion, patient-reported outcomes measures, and failure and osteoarthritis progression. Furthermore, factors affecting the postoperative mechanical and Δmechanical axes were assessed. Results: Thirty-nine patients were included with a mean follow-up of 44.6 months (range, 24-106 months). Valgus malalignment and valgus deviation were observed after ARIF in 10 patients (25.6%) and five patients (12.8%), respectively. The clinical outcomes were similar in patients with and without a postoperative valgus deformity. On the other hand, lateral compartment osteoarthritis progression was significantly higher in the valgus deformity group than in the non-valgus deformity group (valgus malalignment group: 50.0% vs 6.9%, p=0.007; valgus deviation group: 60.0% vs 11.8%, p=0.032).One patient with valgus deformity underwent realignment surgery at postoperative five years. The preoperative ADD and postoperative LPWD were significantly associated with the postoperative mechanical (both, p<0.001) and Δmechanical (ADD, p=0.001; LPWD, p=0.025) axes. Moreover, the lateral meniscectomized status during ARIF was significantly associated with the Δmechanical axis (p=0.019). Conclusion Osteoarthritis progression was highly prevalent in patients with postoperative valgus deformity. Thus, the restoration of lateral plateau widening and articular depression and preservation of the meniscus are necessary to prevent a valgus deformity after ARIF in lateral joint-depression tibial plateau fractures.

Objectives: Limited information is available concerning the epidemiology of stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Republic of Korea. This study aimed to develop a national surveillance system to monitor the incidence of stroke and AMI using national claims data. Methods: We developed and validated identification algorithms for stroke and AMI using claims data. This validation involved a 2-stage stratified sampling method with a review of medical records for sampled cases. The weighted positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated based on the sampling structure and the correspondingsampling rates. Incident cases and the incidence rates of stroke and AMI in the Republic ofKorea were estimated by applying the algorithms and weighted PPV and NPV to the 2018National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: In total, 2,200 cases (1,086 stroke cases and 1,114 AMI cases) were sampled from the 2018 claims database. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms were 94.3% and 88.6% for stroke and 97.9% and 90.1% for AMI, respectively. The estimated number of cases, including recurrent events, was 150,837 for stroke and 40,529 for AMI in 2018. The age- and sex-standardized incidence rate for stroke and AMI was 180.2 and 46.1 cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively, in 2018. Conclusion This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing a national surveillance system based on claims data and identification algorithms for stroke and AMI to monitor their incidence rates.

Free-living amoebae (FLA) are found in diverse environments, such as soils, rivers, and seas. Hence, they can be used as bioindicators to assess the water quality based solely on their presence. In this study, we determined the presence of FLA in river water by filtering water samples collected from various sites and culturing the resulting filtrates. FLA were detected in all the water samples with varying quality grades (Grades Ι-V). The significant increase in the size of the amoebae population with the deterioration in the water quality. Monoxenic cultures of the amoebae were performed, and genomic DNAs were isolated, among which 18S rDNAs were sequenced to identify the amoeba species. Of the 12 species identified, 10 belonged to the Acanthamoeba genus; of the remaining 2 species, one was identified as Vannella croatica and the other as a species of Vermamoeba. Acanthamoeba was detected in samples with Grades Ι to VI quality, whereas the Vermamoeba species was present only in Grade Ι water. V. croatica was found exclusively in water with Grade ΙΙ quality. Following morphological observations, genomic DNA was sequenced using 16S rDNA to determine whether the species of Acanthamoeba harbored endosymbionts. Most of the isolated Acanthamoeba contained endosymbionts, among which 4 species of endogenous bacteria were identified and examined using transmission electron microscopy. This study provides evidence that the distribution of amoebae other than Acanthamoeba may be associated with water quality. However, further confirmation will be required based on accurate water quality ratings and assessments using a more diverse range of FLA.

Objective: To quantify the effects of midline-related landmark identification on midline deviation measurements in posteroanterior (PA) cephalograms using a cascaded convolutional neural network (CNN). Methods: A total of 2,903 PA cephalogram images obtained from 9 university hospitals were divided into training, internal validation, and test sets (n = 2,150, 376, and 377). As the gold standard, 2 orthodontic professors marked the bilateral landmarks, including the frontozygomatic suture point and latero-orbitale (LO), and the midline landmarks, including the crista galli, anterior nasal spine (ANS), upper dental midpoint (UDM), lower dental midpoint (LDM), and menton (Me). For the test, Examiner-1 and Examiner-2 (3-year and 1-year orthodontic residents) and the Cascaded-CNN models marked the landmarks. After point-to-point errors of landmark identification, the successful detection rate (SDR) and distance and direction of the midline landmark deviation from the midsagittal line (ANS-mid, UDM-mid, LDM-mid, and Me-mid) were measured, and statistical analysis was performed. Results: The cascaded-CNN algorithm showed a clinically acceptable level of point-to-point error (1.26 mm vs.1.57 mm in Examiner-1 and 1.75 mm in Examiner-2). The average SDR within the 2 mm range was 83.2%, with high accuracy at the LO (right, 96.9%; left, 97.1%), and UDM (96.9%). The absolute measurement errors were less than 1 mm for ANSmid, UDM-mid, and LDM-mid compared with the gold standard. Conclusions The cascaded-CNN model may be considered an effective tool for the auto-identification of midline landmarks and quantification of midline deviation in PA cephalograms of adult patients, regardless of variations in the image acquisition method.

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.