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: Exhaled condensates contain inflammatory biomarkers; however, their roles in the clinical field have been under-investigated. Methods: We prospectively enrolled subjects admitted to pulmonology clinics. We collected exhaled breath condensates (EBC) and analysed the levels of six and 12 biomarkers using conventional and multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. Results: Among the 123 subjects, healthy controls constituted the largest group (81 participants; 65.9%), followed by the preserved ratio impaired spirometry group (21 patients; 17.1%) and the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) group (21 patients; 17.1%). In COPD patients, platelet derived growth factor-AA exhibited strong positive correlations with COPD assessment test (ρ=0.5926, p=0.0423) and COPD-specific version of St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C) score (total, ρ=0.6725, p=0.0166; activity, ρ=0.7176, p=0.0086; and impacts, ρ=0.6151, p=0.0333). Granzyme B showed strong positive correlations with SGRQ-C score (symptoms, ρ=0.6078, p=0.0360; and impacts, ρ=0.6007, p=0.0389). Interleukin 6 exhibited a strong positive correlation with SGRQ-C score (activity, ρ=0.4671, p=0.0378). The absolute serum eosinophil and basophil counts showed positive correlations with pro-collagen I alpha 1 (ρ=0.6735, p=0.0164 and ρ=0.6295, p=0.0283, respectively). In healthy subjects, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity demonstrated significant correlation with CC chemokine ligand 3 (CCL3)/macrophage inflammatory protein 1 alpha (ρ=0.3897 and p=0.0068). FEV1 exhibited significant correlation with CCL11/eotaxin (ρ=0.4445 and p=0.0017). Conclusion Inflammatory biomarkers in EBC might be useful to predict quality of life concerning respiratory symptoms and serologic markers. Further studies are needed.

Purpose: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia may not be a single disease entity. Early-onset AD (EOAD) and late-onset AD (LOAD) have been united under the same eponym of AD until now, but disentangling the heterogeneity according to the age of sonset has been a major tenet in the field of AD research. Materials and Methods: Ninety-nine patients with AD (EOAD, n=54; LOAD, n=45) and 66 cognitively normal controls completed both [18F]THK5351 and [18F]flutemetamol (FLUTE) positron emission tomography scans along with structural magnetic resonance imaging and detailed neuropsychological tests. Results: EOAD patients had higher THK retention in the precuneus, parietal, and frontal lobe, while LOAD patients had higher THK retention in the medial temporal lobe. Intravoxel correlation analyses revealed that EOAD presented narrower territory of local FLUTE-THK correlation, while LOAD presented broader territory of correlation extending to overall parieto-occipito-temporal regions. EOAD patients had broader brain areas which showed significant negative correlations between cortical thickness and THK retention, whereas in LOAD, only limited brain areas showed significant correlation with THK retention. In EOAD, most of the cognitive test results were correlated with THK retention. However, a few cognitive test results were correlated with THK retention in LOAD. Conclusion LOAD seemed to show gradual increase in tau and amyloid, and those two pathologies have association to each other. On the other hand, in EOAD, tau and amyloid may develop more abruptly and independently. These findings suggest LOAD and EOAD may have different courses of pathomechanism.

Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Korea, need remains for pangenotypic regimens that can be used in the presence of hepatic impairment, comorbidities, or prior treatment failure. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir for 12 weeks in HCV-infected Korean adults. Methods: This Phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study included 2 cohorts. In Cohort 1, participants with HCV genotype 1 or 2 and who were treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with interferon-based treatments, received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir 400/100 mg/day. In Cohort 2, HCV genotype 1 infected individuals who previously received an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen ≥ 4 weeks received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir 400/100/100 mg/day. Decompensated cirrhosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary endpoint was SVR12, defined as HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL 12 weeks following treatment. Results: Of 53 participants receiving sofosbuvir–velpatasvir, 52 (98.1%) achieved SVR12. The single participant who did not achieve SVR12 experienced an asymptomatic Grade 3 ASL/ALT elevation on day 15 and discontinued treatment. The event resolved without intervention. All 33 participants (100%) treated with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir achieved SVR 12. Overall, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir were safe and well tolerated. Three participants (5.6%) in Cohort 1 and 1 participant (3.0%) in Cohort 2 had serious adverse events, but none were considered treatment-related. No deaths or grade 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir or sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir was safe and resulted in high SVR12 rates in Korean HCV patients.

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a polysaccharide found in the extracellular matrix of the epithelial, nervous, and connective tissues of vertebrates. It is widely used in the treatment of ocular surface diseases (OSDs), including dry eye, due to its high water-retaining capacity, viscoelasticity, and role as a signaling molecule in inflammation and wound healing. This paper reviews the physicochemical and biological properties of HA related to the treatment of OSDs and the results of published preclinical studies, clinical trials, and meta-analyses on the effects of HA eye drops on the tear film, the mechanism of action of HA eye drops, and its clinical effects and adverse events in OSDs, such as corneal/conjunctival epithelial defects, dry eye, and postoperative dry eye. This review should help inform clinical judgments by providing clinical evidence and precautions on the use of HA eye drops in OSDs, including dry eye.

Purpose: Oxaliplatin, a component of the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) regimen, has a more favorable toxicity profile than cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). However, oxaliplatin can induce sensory neuropathy and cumulative, dose-related toxicities. Thus, the capecitabine maintenance regimen may achieve the maximum treatment effect while reducing the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with advanced GC between capecitabine maintenance and observation after 1st line XELOX chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients treated with six cycles of XELOX for advanced GC in six hospitals of the Catholic University of Korea were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine maintenance or observation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed using a two-sided log-rank test stratified at a 5% significance level. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 32 and 31 patients were randomized into the maintenance and observation groups, respectively. After randomization, the median number of capecitabine maintenance cycles was 6. The PFS was significantly higher in the maintenance group than the observation group (6.3 vs. 4.1 months, P=0.010). Overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (18.2 vs. 16.5 months, P=0.624). Toxicities, such as hand-foot syndrome, were reported in some maintenance group patients. Maintenance treatment was a significant factor associated with PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.250–0.890; P=0.020). Conclusions After 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy, capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged PFS compared with observation, and toxicity was manageable. Maintenance treatment was a significant prognostic factor associated with PFS.

This study aimed to examine the distribution of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in domestic pigs in the Republic of Korea. From May 2020 to October 2021, 364 pig fecal samples were collected from 75 farms in 7 Provinces and microscopically examined. A total of 170 (46.7%) pigs were infected with at least one of the following parasites: Balantioides coli, strongyles, Ascaris suum, Trichuris suis, and coccidia. By parasite species, B. coli, strongyles, A. suum, T. suis, and coccidia oocysts or eggs were detected in 144 (39.6%), 24 (6.6%), 14 (3.8%), 4 (1.1%), and 1 (0.3%) samples, respectively. One hundred fifty-four, 15, and 1 cases showed single, double, and triple infections, respectively. Of the swine fecal samples from 75 farms, 69 specimens (92.0%) were infected with 1 or more parasites. All surveyed farms across the country exhibited a positive rate of over 30%, among which the highest positive rate was 65.0% in Chungcheongnam-do, and Jeollabuk-do was followed by 61.9%. Winter showed a statistically lower prevalence than other seasons. This study showed that gastrointestinal parasites are prevalent in pigs in Korea, although the diversity of parasites is low.

Purpose: To derive the optimized intraocular lens (IOL) constants from automated and manifest refraction after cataract surgery in Korean patients, and to evaluate whether there is a difference in optimized IOL constants according to the refraction method. Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study enrolled 4,103 eyes of 4,103 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and in-the-bag IOL implantation at 18 institutes. Optimized IOL constants for the SRK/T, Holladay, Hoffer Q, and Haigis formulas were calculated via autorefraction or manifest refraction of samples using the same biometry and IOL. The IOL constants derived from autorefraction and manifest refraction were compared. Results: Of the 4,103 eyes, the majority (62.9%) were measured with an IOLMaster 500 followed by an IOLMaster 700 (15.2%). A total of 33 types of IOLs were used, and the Tecnis ZCB00 was the most frequently used (53.0%). There was no statistically significant difference in IOL constants derived from autorefraction and manifest refraction when IOL constants were optimized with a large number of study subjects. On the other hand, optimized IOL constants derived from autorefraction were significantly smaller than those from manifest refraction when the number of subjects was small. Conclusions It became possible to use the IOL constants optimized from Koreans to calculate the IOL power. However, if the IOL constant is optimized using autorefraction in a small sample group, the IOL constant tends to be small, which may lead to refractive error after surgery.