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: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.

Background: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.

Background: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is related to an increased risk of extrahepatic malignancy (EHM), and antiviral treatment is associated with an incidence of EHM comparable to controls. We compared the risks of EHM and intrahepatic malignancy (IHM) between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment. Methods: Using data from the National Health Insurance Service of Korea, this nationwide cohort study included treatment-naïve CHB patients who initiated ETV (n=24,287) or TDF (n=29,199) therapy between 2012 and 2014. The primary outcome was the development of any primary EHM. Secondary outcomes included overall IHM development. E-value was calculated to assess the robustness of results to unmeasured confounders. Results: The median follow-up duration was 5.9 years, and all baseline characteristics were well balanced after propensity score matching. EHM incidence rate differed significantly between within versus beyond 3 years in both groups (P<0.01, Davies test). During the first 3 years, EHM risk was comparable in the propensity score-matched cohort (5.88 versus 5.84/1,000 person-years; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]=1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88–1.17, P=0.84). After year 3, however, TDF was associated with a significantly lower EHM incidence compared to ETV (4.92 versus 6.91/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.70, 95% CI=0.60–0.81, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.21). Regarding IHM, the superiority of TDF over ETV was maintained both within (17.58 versus 20.19/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.88, 95% CI=0.81–0.95, P<0.01) and after year 3 (11.45 versus 16.20/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.68, 95% CI=0.62–0.75, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.30). Conclusions TDF was associated with approximately 30% lower risks of both EHM and IHM than ETV in CHB patients after 3 years of antiviral therapy.

Background: Recent reports have suggested that pneumonitis is a rare complication following vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).However, its clinical features and outcomes are not well known. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with vaccine-associated pneumonitis following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: In this nationwide multicenter survey study, questionnaires were distributed to pulmonary physicians in referral hospitals. They were asked to report cases of development or exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Vaccine-associated pneumonitis was defined as new pulmonary infiltrates documented on chest computed tomography within 4 weeks of vaccination and exclusion of other possible etiologies. Results: From the survey, 49 cases of vaccine-associated pneumonitis were identified between February 27 and October 30, 2021. After multidisciplinary discussion, 46 cases were analyzed. The median age was 66 years and 28 (61%) were male. The median interval between vaccination and respiratory symptoms was 5 days. There were 20 (43%), 17 (37%), and nine (19%) patients with newly identified pneumonitis, exacerbation of pre-diagnosed ILD, and undetermined pre-existing ILD, respectively. The administered vaccines were BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCov-19/AZD1222 each in 21 patients followed by mRNA-1273 in three, and Ad26.COV2.S in one patient. Except for five patients with mild disease, 41 (89%) patients were treated with corticosteroid. Significant improvement was observed in 26 (57%) patients including four patients who did not receive treatment. However, ILD aggravated in 9 (20%) patients despite treatment. Mortality was observed in eight (17%) patients. Conclusion These results suggest pneumonitis as a potentially significant safety concern for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical awareness and patient education are necessary for early recognition and prompt management. Additional research is warranted to identify the epidemiology and characterize the pathophysiology of vaccine-associated pneumonitis.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Background/Aims: To identify changes in symptoms and pulmonary sequelae in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at seven university hospitals in Korea between February 2020 and February 2021 were enrolled, provided they had ≥ 1 outpatient follow-up visit. Between January 11 and March 9, 2021 (study period), residual symptom investigations, chest computed tomography (CT) scans, pulmonary function tests (PFT), and neutralizing antibody tests (NAb) were performed at the outpatient visit (cross-sectional design). Additionally, data from patients who already had follow-up outpatient visits before the study period were collected retrospectively. Results: Investigation of residual symptoms, chest CT scans, PFT, and NAb were performed in 84, 35, 31, and 27 patients, respectively. After 6 months, chest discomfort and dyspnea persisted in 26.7% (4/15) and 33.3% (5/15) patients, respectively, and 40.0% (6/15) and 26.7% (4/15) patients experienced financial loss and emotional distress, respectively. When the ratio of later CT score to previous ones was calculated for each patient between three different time intervals (1–14, 15–60, and 61–365 days), the median values were 0.65 (the second interval to the first), 0.39 (the third to the second), and 0.20 (the third to the first), indicating that CT score decreases with time. In the high-severity group, the ratio was lower than in the low-severity group. Conclusions In COVID-19 survivors, chest CT score recovers over time, but recovery is slower in severely ill patients. Subjects complained of various ongoing symptoms and socioeconomic problems for several months after recovery.