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.

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.

Perforation of the pharynx due to external blunt trauma is an uncommon type of pharyngeal injury. It can lead to serious complications such as deep neck infection, sepsis, mediastinitis, and even mortality if not promptly recognized and treated. Therefore, early diagnosis and treatment are crucial to prevent severe consequences and long-term complications. If the size of the injury is less than 2 cm and there is no invasion of the esophagus or mediastinum, conservative, nonsurgical treatment may be appropriate. In this case report, we present a case of retropharyngeal wall perforation following external blunt neck trauma with literature review.

Background/Aims: Colorectal adenomas are precancerous lesions that may lead to colorectal cancer. Recent studies have shown that colorectal adenomas are associated with atherosclerosis. The cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) and ankle-brachial index (ABI) are noninvasive methods for evaluating atherosclerosis. This study examined the association between atherosclerosis and high-risk colorectal adenomas based on the CAVI and ABI. Methods: The data of patients aged ≥50 years who had a colonoscopy and CAVI and ABI measurements from August 2015 to December 2021 at the Kangwon National University Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. After the colonoscopy, subjects were divided into no, overall, and high-risk (size ≥1 cm, high-grade dysplasia or villous adenoma, three or more adenomas) adenoma groups based on the pathology findings. The data were subjected to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: Among the 1,164 subjects, adenomas and high-risk adenomas were found in 613 (52.6%) and 118 (10.1%) patients, respectively. The rate of positive ABI (<0.9) and positive CAVI (≥9.0) were significantly higher in the high-risk adenoma group (22.0% and 55.9%) than in the no adenoma (12.3% and 39.6%) and the overall adenoma group (15.7% and 44.0%) (p=0.008 and p=0.006, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed a positive CAVI and smoking status to be significantly associated with high-risk adenoma with an odds ratio of 1.595 (95% confidence interval 1.055–2.410, p=0.027) and 1.579 (1.072–2.324, p=0.021), respectively. Conclusions In this study, a significant correlation between positive CAVI and high-risk adenomas was observed. Therefore, CAVI may be a significant predictor for high-risk colorectal adenoma.

Purpose: Frequent neutropenia hinders uninterrupted palbociclib treatment in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer. We compared the efficacy outcomes in multicenter cohorts of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) receiving palbociclib following conventional dose modification or limited modified schemes for afebrile grade 3 neutropenia. Materials and Methods: Patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative mBC (n=434) receiving palbociclib with letrozole as first-line therapy were analyzed and classified based on neutropenia grade and afebrile grade 3 neutropenia management as follows: group 1 (maintained palbociclib dose, limited scheme), group 2 (dose delay or reduction, conventional scheme), group 3 (no afebrile grade 3 neutropenia event), and group 4 (grade 4 neutropenia event). The primary and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) between groups 1 and 2 and PFS, overall survival, and safety profiles among all groups. Results: During follow-up (median 23.7 months), group 1 (2-year PFS, 67.9%) showed significantly longer PFS than did group 2 (2-year PFS, 55.3%; p=0.036), maintained across all subgroups, and upon adjustment of the factors. Febrile neutropenia occurred in one and two patients of group 1 and group 2, respectively, without mortality. Conclusion Limited dose modification for palbociclib-related grade 3 neutropenia may lead to longer PFS, without increasing toxicity, than the conventional dose scheme.

Background/Aims: The eCura system, a scoring model for stratifying the lymph node metastasis risk after noncurative endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer (EGC), has been internally validated, primarily for differentiated-type EGC. We aimed to externally validate this model for undifferentiated-type EGC. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 634 patients who underwent additional surgery (radical surgery group, n=270) or were followed up without additional treatment (no additional treatment group, n=364) after noncurative endoscopic resection for undifferentiated-type EGC between 2005 and 2015. The lymph node metastasis and survival rates were compared according to the risk categories. Results: For the radical surgery group, the lymph node metastasis rates were 2.6%, 10.9%, and 14.8% for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk eCura categories, respectively (p for trend=0.003). For the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories in the no additional treatment group, the overall survival (92.7%, 68.9%, and 80.0% at 5 years, respectively, p<0.001) and cancer-specific survival rates (99.7%, 94.7%, and 80.0% at 5 years, respectively, p<0.001) differed significantly. In the multivariate analysis, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) in the no additional treatment group relative to the radical surgery group were 3.18 (1.41 to 7.17; p=0.005) for overall mortality and 2.60 (0.46 to 14.66; p=0.280) for cancer-specific mortality in the intermediate-tohigh risk category. No such differences were noted in the low-risk category. Conclusions The eCura system can be applied to undifferentiated-type EGC. Close follow-up without additional treatment might be considered for low-risk patients, while additional surgery is recommended for intermediate- and high-risk patients.