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: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Objectives: This study explored the experiences of medical students enrolled in an elective course titled "Healthcare Innovation and Women's Ventures II" at Ewha Womans University College of Medicine. The research questions were as follows: First, what motivated medical students to participate in the experiential entrepreneurship course? Second, what experiences did the students have during the course? Third, what changes did the students undergo as a result of the course? Methods: Focus group interviews were conducted with six medical students who participated in the experiential entrepreneurship course from February 13 to 23, 2024. Results: The analysis identified three domains, seven categories, and 17 subcategories. In terms of motivations for enrolling in the experiential entrepreneurship course, two categories were identified: "existing interest" and "new exploration." With respect to the experiences gained from the course, three categories emerged: "cognitive experiences," "emotional experiences," and "behavioral experiences." Finally, two categories were identified concerning the changes participants experienced through the course: "changes related to entrepreneurship" and "changes related to career paths." Conclusion Students were motivated to enroll in this course by both their existing interests and their desire to explore new areas. Following the course, they underwent cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes. Their perceptions of entrepreneurship and career paths were significantly altered.This study is important because it explores the impact of entrepreneurship education in medical schools from the students' perspective.

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.

Purpose: Data on subsequent arm lymphedema (SAL) after salvage treatment for locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer are limited. We conducted a study to evaluate the risk of SAL in patients with LRR. Methods: We reviewed the data of patients with breast cancer who had LRR and were initially diagnosed between January 2003 and December 2017. Among the 214 patients who received curative salvage treatment, most had local (n = 125, 57.9%), followed by regional (n = 73, 34.1%), and locoregional (n = 16, 7.9%) recurrences. A competing risk analysis considering the factors of death and a second LRR were performed to exclude potential malignant lymphedema. We used the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazards model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for comparing the risk of SAL. Results: With a median follow-up duration of 41.4 months (interquartile range, 25.6–65.1), 51 patients (23.8%) experienced SAL with a median interval of 9.9 months after treatment.The two-year cumulative incidence of SAL was 12.7%. Among the 18 patients with initial lymphedema, nine (50.0%) developed SAL. Multivariate analysis revealed that a history of lymphedema (HR, 4.61; p < 0.001) and taxane-based salvage chemotherapy (HR, 2.38; p = 0.009) were significantly associated with SAL development. Conclusion Salvage treatment for LRR-induced SAL was performed in 24% of the patients.A history of initial lymphedema and salvage taxane-based chemotherapy increases the risk of developing SAL. Therefore, close surveillance for the incidence of SAL is required in patients opting for salvage treatment for LRR.

We examined the anticancer effects of a novel sirtuin inhibitor, MHY2256, on HCT116 human colorectal cancer cells to investigate its underlying molecular mechanisms. MHY2256 significantly suppressed the activity of sirtuin 1 and expression levels of sirtuin 1/2 and stimulated acetylation of forkhead box O1, which is a target protein of sirtuin 1. Treatment with MHY2256 inhibited the growth of the HCT116 (TP53 wild-type), HT-29 (TP53 mutant), and DLD-1 (TP53 mutant) human colorectal cancer cell lines. In addition, MHY2256 induced G0/G1 phase arrest of the cell cycle progression, which was accompanied by the reduction of cyclin D1 and cyclin E and the decrease of cyclin-dependent kinase 2, cyclin-dependent kinase 4, cyclin-dependent kinase 6, phosphorylated retinoblastoma protein, and E2F transcription factor 1. Apoptosis induction was shown by DNA fragmentation and increase in late apoptosis, which were detected using flow cytometric analysis. MHY2256 downregulated expression levels of procaspase-8, -9, and -3 and led to subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage. MHY2256-induced apoptosis was involved in the activation of caspase-8, -9, and -3 and was prevented by pretreatment with Z-VAD-FMK, a pan-caspase inhibitor. Furthermore, the autophagic effects of MHY2256 were observed as cytoplasmic vacuolation, green fluorescent protein-light-chain 3 punctate dots, accumulation of acidic vesicular organelles, and upregulated expression level of light-chain 3-II. Taken together, these results suggest that MHY2256 could be a potential novel sirtuin inhibitor for the chemoprevention or treatment of colorectal cancer or both.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to establish the role and to analyze the job of MFICU (Maternal Fetal Intensive Care Unit) nurses using DACUM (Developing a curriculum). METHODS: A DACUM workshop was held to define MFICU nurses' role and identify their duties and tasks. A DACUM committee was consisted of 7 nurses, 2 nursing professors and 1 medical doctor and as a result, a survey was developed which contained duties and tasks of MFICU nurse. Pre-test was carried out for the validity, finally collected the data from 97 nurses who worked at 7 MFICU and 10 delivery room. RESULTS: A total of 60 duties, 115 tasks and 822 elements of tasks were defined on the DACUM chart and survey. The importance, frequency and difficulty of the tasks were presented the determinant coefficient (DC), the highest DC duty was ‘Manage maternal ventilator’ (15.09) and the lowest DC was ‘Provide nursing care for leisure to gestation extension mother’ (6.52). Twenty-eight tasks were differentiated between MFICU and delivery nurses significantly. And the most important, frequently, difficulty task perceived by MFICU nurse was ‘Check fetal heartbeat with electronic fetal heart monitor’. CONCLUSION: The organized educational program and policy was needed to develop for MFICU nurses.
Critical Care ; Delivery Rooms ; Education ; Fetal Heart ; Intensive Care Units ; Leisure Activities ; Nursing ; Nursing Care ; Pregnancy