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.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Background/Aims: Besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) have been recently approved in Korea as the initial antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis B (CHB).However, the real-world outcome data for these drugs remain limited. Therefore, we conducted a noninferiority analysis using real-world data to compare the clinical outcomes of the two nucleotide analogs in treatment-naïve patients with CHB. Methods: We retrospectively investigated a cohort of patients with CHB who received BSV or TAF as first-line antiviral agents. The endpoints were virological response (VR) and liver-related clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 537 patients, consisting of 202 and 335 patients administered BSV and TAF, respectively, were followed up for 42 months. No significant difference was observed between the VRs of the patients from the two groups. The rates of biochemical response, virologic breakthrough, and incidence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma did not differ between the groups. However, the hepatitis B e antigen seroclearance rate was higher and the renal function declined less in the BSV group. Multivariable analysis indicated older age, alcohol abuse, cirrhosis and ascites, and lower serum HBV DNA level to be independently associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma risk. The 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis with 400 patients showed VR rates of 85.0% and 88.7% in the BSV and TAF group patients, respectively, at 2 years. The absolute value of the 95% confidence interval for the difference (–0.04 to 0.12) satisfied the a priori limit of a noninferiority of 0.15. Conclusions BSV is noninferior to TAF in terms of VR, and their clinical outcomes are comparable to CHB.

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.

Cervical tumors represent a prevalent form of cancer affecting women worldwide; current treatment options involve surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Angiogenesis, the process of new blood vessel formation, is a crucial factor in cervical tumor growth. The molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of the liver kinase B1 (LKB1/STK11) tumor suppressor protein on tumor angiogenesis have not been elucidated. Therefore, we investigated the role of LKB1 in cervical tumor angiogenesis both in vitro and in vivo in this study. Our results demonstrated that LKB1 inhibited cervical tumor angiogenesis by suppressing the expression of angiogenesis-related factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and hypoxia inducible factor-1α. LKB1 directly affected both carcinoma and vascular endothelial cells, resulting in a significant reduction in tumor growth and angiogenesis. Furthermore, LKB1 was found to bind to VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and target the VEGFR-2-mediated protein kinase B/ mechanistic target of rapamycin signaling pathway in endothelial cells, thereby reducing cervical tumor growth and angiogenesis.Our study provides new insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying the anti-tumor and anti-angiogenic effects of LKB1 in cervical cancer. These findings will help develop new therapeutic strategies for cervical cancer.

Liver kinase B1 (LKB1) is a crucial tumor suppressor involved in various cellular processes, including embryonic development, tumor initiation and progression, cell adhesion, apoptosis, and metabolism. However, the precise mechanisms underlying its functions remain elusive. In this study, we demonstrate that LKB1 interacts directly with malic enzyme 3 (ME3) through the N-terminus of the enzyme and identified the binding regions necessary for this interaction. The binding activity was confirmed to promote the expression of ME3 in an LKB1-dependent manner and was also shown to induce apoptosis activity. Furthermore, LKB1 and ME3 overexpression upregulated the expression of tumour suppressor proteins (p53 and p21) and downregulated the expression of antiapoptotic proteins (nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) and B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2)). Additionally, LKB1 and ME3 enhanced the transcription of p21 and p53 and inhibited the transcription of NF-κB. Moreover, LKB1 and ME3 suppressed the phosphorylation of various components of the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase/protein kinase B signaling pathway. Overall, these results suggest that LKB1 promotes pro-apoptotic activities by inducing ME3 expression.