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/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Purpose: The original eCura system was designed to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC).We assessed the effectiveness of a modified eCura system for reflecting the characteristics of undifferentiated-type (UD)-EGC. Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-four patients who underwent non-curative ER for UD-EGC and received either additional surgery (radical surgery group; n=270) or no further treatment (no additional treatment group; n=364) from 18 institutions between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. The eCuraU system assigned 1 point each for tumors >20 mm in size, ulceration, positive vertical margin, and submucosal invasion <500 µm; 2 points for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm; and 3 points for lymphovascular invasion. Results: LNM rates in the radical surgery group were 1.1%, 5.4%, and 13.3% for the low-(0–1 point), intermediate- (2–3 points), and high-risk (4–8 points), respectively (P-fortrend<0.001). The eCuraU system showed a significantly higher probability of identifying patients with LNM as high-risk than the eCura system (66.7% vs. 22.2%; McNemar P<0.001).In the no additional treatment group, overall survival (93.4%, 87.2%, and 67.6% at 5 years) and cancer-specific survival (99.6%, 98.9%, and 92.9% at 5 years) differed significantly among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (both P<0.001). In the high-risk category, surgery outperformed no treatment in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 3.26; P=0.015). Conclusions The eCuraU system stratified the risk of LNM in patients with UD-EGC after ER. It is strongly recommended that high-risk patients undergo additional surgery.