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.

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.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) patients usually wonder if their condition will worsen after vaccination or if they should continue with the treatment they are receiving. Considering that many patients treated with dupilumab had previously experienced severe AD symptoms and flares, the concerns are more understandable. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the safety of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with AD treated with dupilumab. Methods: We enrolled 133 patients (101 dupilumab-treated and 32 systemic oral agentstreated as control group) with AD from six hospitals. Patients were asked about worsening pruritus and AD (5-point Likert scale) after vaccination. AD variables (eczema area and severity index [EASI], investigator’s global assessment [IGA], itch numerical rating scale [NRS], sleep NRS, and patient-oriented eczema measure [POEM]) were compared pre- and postvaccination. Adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Results: The incidence of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and worsening AD symptoms in dupilumab-treated patients were not significantly different compared with that in the control group. The itch NRS score increased significantly after vaccination (p<0.001).However, there were no statistically significant differences between the pre-and post-EASI, IGA, and POEM scores. Eight patients (7.9%) had worse EASI scores and required rescue therapy; however, most were easily managed with low-dose steroids or topical agents. None of the patients discontinued dupilumab treatment. Conclusion No serious adverse reactions were observed in patients with AD after COVID-19 vaccination. Exacerbation of pruritus and AD symptoms was observed but was mostly mild and transient.

Purpose: Three years of adjuvant imatinib is the standard treatment for resected gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) with rupture, but the recurrence rate is prominently high. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of 5-year adjuvant imatinib compared with 3-year treatment in patients with a ruptured GIST following surgical resection. Materials and Methods: A total of 51 patients were included in the analysis. The assessment of GIST rupture was based on Nishida’s classification. Twenty patients who were diagnosed before November 2013 were treated with 5 years of imatinib, and 31 patients who were diagnosed after November 2013 were treated with 3 years of imatinib. We retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes of the two groups. Results: Baseline characteristics and the incidence of the adverse events were generally comparable between the two groups. During a median follow-up duration of 43.8 months and 104.2 months in the 3- and 5-year group, 8 and 9 patients had a disease recurrence, respectively. The 5-year group showed better recurrence-free survival (RFS) than the 3-year group. In multivariate analysis, low mitotic index was a significant independent favorable prognostic factor for RFS, while 5-year imatinib treatment was marginally associated with a favorable RFS. Conclusion Five years of adjuvant imatinib treatment in patients with ruptured GIST was associated with favorable survival outcomes with manageable toxicity profiles. Our findings warrant validation and confirmation in future studies.

Objective: The incidence of hip fractures is increasing worldwide with the aging population, causing a challenge to healthcare systems due to the associated morbidities and high risk of mortality. After hip fractures in frail geriatric patients, existing comorbidities worsen and new complications are prone to occur. Comprehensive rehabilitation is essential for promoting physical function recovery and minimizing complications, which can be achieved through a multidisciplinary approach. Recommendations are required to assist healthcare providers in making decisions on rehabilitation post-surgery. Clinical practice guidelines regarding rehabilitation (physical and occupational therapies) and management of comorbidities/complications in the postoperative phase of hip fractures have not been developed. This guideline aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for various treatment items required for proper recovery after hip fracture surgeries. Methods Reflecting the complex perspectives associated with rehabilitation post-hip surgeries, 15 key questions (KQs) reflecting the complex perspectives associated with post-hip surgery rehabilitation were categorized into four areas: multidisciplinary, rehabilitation, community-care, and comorbidities/complications. Relevant literature from four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed) was searched for articles published up to February 2020. The evidence level and recommended grade were determined according to the grade of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation method. Results A multidisciplinary approach, progressive resistance exercises, and balance training are strongly recommended. Early ambulation, weigh-bearing exercises, activities of daily living training, community-level rehabilitation, management of comorbidities/complication prevention, and nutritional support were also suggested. This multidisciplinary approach reduced the total healthcare cost. Conclusion This guideline presents comprehensive recommendations for the rehabilitation of adult patients after hip fracture surgery.

Objective: The incidence of hip fractures is increasing worldwide with the aging population, causing a challenge to healthcare systems due to the associated morbidities and high risk of mortality. After hip fractures in frail geriatric patients, existing comorbidities worsen and new complications are prone to occur. Comprehensive rehabilitation is essential for promoting physical function recovery and minimizing complications, which can be achieved through a multidisciplinary approach. Recommendations are required to assist healthcare providers in making decisions on rehabilitation post-surgery. Clinical practice guidelines regarding rehabilitation (physical and occupational therapies) and management of comorbidities/complications in the postoperative phase of hip fractures have not been developed. This guideline aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for various treatment items required for proper recovery after hip fracture surgeries. Methods Reflecting the complex perspectives associated with rehabilitation post-hip surgeries, 15 key questions (KQs) reflecting the complex perspectives associated with post-hip surgery rehabilitation were categorized into four areas: multidisciplinary, rehabilitation, community-care, and comorbidities/complications. Relevant literature from four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed) was searched for articles published up to February 2020. The evidence level and recommended grade were determined according to the grade of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation method. Results A multidisciplinary approach, progressive resistance exercises, and balance training are strongly recommended. Early ambulation, weigh-bearing exercises, activities of daily living training, community-level rehabilitation, management of comorbidities/complication prevention, and nutritional support were also suggested. This multidisciplinary approach reduced the total healthcare cost. Conclusion This guideline presents comprehensive recommendations for the rehabilitation of adult patients after hip fracture surgery.

Though clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are an effective and widely used treatment method worldwide, they are as yet not widely accepted in Korea. Given that cardiovascular (CV) disease is the second leading cause of death in Korea, it is urgent that CR programs be developed. In 2008, the Government of Korea implemented CR programs at 11 university hospitals as part of its Regional Cardio-Cerebrovascular Center Project, and 3 additional medical facilities will be added in 2019. In addition, owing to the promotion of CR nationwide and the introduction of CR insurance benefits, 40 medical institutions nationwide have begun CR programs even as a growing number of medical institutions are preparing to offer CR. The purpose of this research was to develop evidence-based CPGs to support CR implementation in Korea. This study is based on an analysis of CPGs elsewhere in the world, an extensive literature search, a systematic analysis of multiple randomized control trials, and a CPG management, development, and assessment committee comprised of thirty-three authors—primarily rehabilitation specialists, cardiologists, and thoracic surgeons in 21 university hospitals and 2 general hospitals. Twelve consultants, primarily rehabilitation, sports medicine, and preventive medicine specialists, CPG experts, nurses, physical therapists, clinical nutritionists, and library and information experts participated in the research and development of these CPGs. After the draft guidelines were developed, 3 rounds of public hearings were held with staff members from relevant academic societies and stakeholders, after which the guidelines were further reviewed and modified. CR involves a more cost-effective use of healthcare resources relative to that of general treatments, and the exercise component of CR lowers CV mortality and readmission rates, regardless of the type of coronary heart disease and type and setting of CR. Individualized CR programs should be considered together with various factors, including differences in heart function and lifestyle, and doing so will boost participation and adherence with the CR program, ultimately meeting the final goals of the program, namely reducing the recurrence of myocardial infarction and mortality rates.