Purpose: This study assessed the impact of hepatic fibrosis on the diagnostic performance of the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) in quantifying hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods: CHB patients who underwent liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and CAP assessment using transient elastography before liver resection between 2019 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical data included body mass index (BMI) and laboratory parameters. The histologically determined hepatic fat fraction (HFF) and fibrosis stages were reviewed by pathologists blinded to clinical and radiologic data. The Pearson correlation coefficient between CAP and HFF was calculated. The diagnostic performance of CAP for significant hepatic steatosis (HFF ≥10%) was assessed using areas under the receiver operating curve (AUCs), stratified by fibrosis stages (F0-1 vs. F2-4). Factors significantly associated with CAP were determined by univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses. Results: Among 399 CHB patients (median age 59 years; 306 men), 16.3% showed significant steatosis. HFF ranged from 0% to 60%. Of these patients, 9.8%, 19.8%, 29.3%, and 41.1% had fibrosis stages F0-1, F2, F3, and F4, respectively. CAP positively correlated with HFF (r=0.445, P<0.001). The AUC of CAP for diagnosing significant steatosis was 0.786 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.726 to 0.845) overall, and significantly lower in F2-4 (0.772; 95% CI, 0.708 to 0.836) than in F0-1 (0.924; 95% CI, 0.835 to 1.000) (P=0.006). Multivariable analysis showed that BMI (P<0.001) and HFF (P<0.001) significantly affected CAP, whereas LSM and fibrosis stages did not. Conclusion CAP evaluations of significant hepatic steatosis are less reliable in CHB patients with significant or more advanced (F2-4) than with no or mild (F0-1) fibrosis.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Purpose: This study assessed the impact of hepatic fibrosis on the diagnostic performance of the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) in quantifying hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods: CHB patients who underwent liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and CAP assessment using transient elastography before liver resection between 2019 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical data included body mass index (BMI) and laboratory parameters. The histologically determined hepatic fat fraction (HFF) and fibrosis stages were reviewed by pathologists blinded to clinical and radiologic data. The Pearson correlation coefficient between CAP and HFF was calculated. The diagnostic performance of CAP for significant hepatic steatosis (HFF ≥10%) was assessed using areas under the receiver operating curve (AUCs), stratified by fibrosis stages (F0-1 vs. F2-4). Factors significantly associated with CAP were determined by univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses. Results: Among 399 CHB patients (median age 59 years; 306 men), 16.3% showed significant steatosis. HFF ranged from 0% to 60%. Of these patients, 9.8%, 19.8%, 29.3%, and 41.1% had fibrosis stages F0-1, F2, F3, and F4, respectively. CAP positively correlated with HFF (r=0.445, P<0.001). The AUC of CAP for diagnosing significant steatosis was 0.786 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.726 to 0.845) overall, and significantly lower in F2-4 (0.772; 95% CI, 0.708 to 0.836) than in F0-1 (0.924; 95% CI, 0.835 to 1.000) (P=0.006). Multivariable analysis showed that BMI (P<0.001) and HFF (P<0.001) significantly affected CAP, whereas LSM and fibrosis stages did not. Conclusion CAP evaluations of significant hepatic steatosis are less reliable in CHB patients with significant or more advanced (F2-4) than with no or mild (F0-1) fibrosis.

Purpose: This study assessed the impact of hepatic fibrosis on the diagnostic performance of the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) in quantifying hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods: CHB patients who underwent liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and CAP assessment using transient elastography before liver resection between 2019 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical data included body mass index (BMI) and laboratory parameters. The histologically determined hepatic fat fraction (HFF) and fibrosis stages were reviewed by pathologists blinded to clinical and radiologic data. The Pearson correlation coefficient between CAP and HFF was calculated. The diagnostic performance of CAP for significant hepatic steatosis (HFF ≥10%) was assessed using areas under the receiver operating curve (AUCs), stratified by fibrosis stages (F0-1 vs. F2-4). Factors significantly associated with CAP were determined by univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses. Results: Among 399 CHB patients (median age 59 years; 306 men), 16.3% showed significant steatosis. HFF ranged from 0% to 60%. Of these patients, 9.8%, 19.8%, 29.3%, and 41.1% had fibrosis stages F0-1, F2, F3, and F4, respectively. CAP positively correlated with HFF (r=0.445, P<0.001). The AUC of CAP for diagnosing significant steatosis was 0.786 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.726 to 0.845) overall, and significantly lower in F2-4 (0.772; 95% CI, 0.708 to 0.836) than in F0-1 (0.924; 95% CI, 0.835 to 1.000) (P=0.006). Multivariable analysis showed that BMI (P<0.001) and HFF (P<0.001) significantly affected CAP, whereas LSM and fibrosis stages did not. Conclusion CAP evaluations of significant hepatic steatosis are less reliable in CHB patients with significant or more advanced (F2-4) than with no or mild (F0-1) fibrosis.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Purpose: Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023. Materials and Methods: The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys. Results: Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively. Conclusions The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.

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.