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 escalating burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a critical public health issue worldwide. CVD, especially acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke, is the leading contributor to morbidity and mortality in Korea. We aimed to develop algorithms for identifying AMI and stroke events from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database and validate these algorithms through medical record review. METHODS: We first established a concept and definition of “hospitalization episode,” taking into account the unique features of health claims-based NHIS database. We then developed first and recurrent event identification algorithms, separately for AMI and stroke, to determine whether each hospitalization episode represents a true incident case of AMI or stroke. Finally, we assessed our algorithms’ accuracy by calculating their positive predictive values (PPVs) based on medical records of algorithm- identified events. RESULTS: We developed identification algorithms for both AMI and stroke. To validate them, we conducted retrospective review of medical records for 3,140 algorithm-identified events (1,399 AMI and 1,741 stroke events) across 24 hospitals throughout Korea. The overall PPVs for the first and recurrent AMI events were around 92% and 78%, respectively, while those for the first and recurrent stroke events were around 88% and 81%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS We successfully developed algorithms for identifying AMI and stroke events. The algorithms demonstrated high accuracy, with PPVs of approximately 90% for first events and 80% for recurrent events. These findings indicate that our algorithms hold promise as an instrumental tool for the consistent and reliable production of national CVD statistics in Korea.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the added value of contrast leakage information from dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC MRI) is a better prognostic imaging biomarker than the cerebral blood volume (CBV) value in distinguishing true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients. Materials and Methods: Forty-nine glioblastoma patients who had undergone MRI after concurrent chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide were enrolled in this retrospective study. Twenty features were extracted from the normalized relative CBV (nCBV) and extraction fraction (EF) map of the contrast-enhancing region in each patient. After univariable analysis, we used multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis to identify significant predictors for differentiating between pseudoprogression and true progression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed to determine the best cutoff values for the nCBV and EF features. Finally, leave-one-out cross-validation was used to validate the best predictor in differentiating between true progression and pseudoprogression. Results: Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that MGMT (O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase) and EF max were independent differentiating variables (P = 0.004 and P = 0.02, respectively). ROC analysis yielded the best cutoff value of 95.75 for the EF max value for differentiating the two groups (sensitivity, 61%; specificity, 84.6%; AUC, 0.681 ± 0.08; 95% CI, 0.524-0.837; P = 0.03). In the leave-one-out cross-validation of the EF max value, the cross-validated values for predicting true progression and pseudoprogression accuracies were 69.4% and 71.4%,respectively. Conclusion We demonstrated that contrast leakage information parameter from DSC MRI showed significance in differentiating true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients.

Background: Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a sporadic neurodegenerative disease characterized by various combinations of parkinsonism, cerebellar ataxia, autonomic dysfunction and pyramidal signs. Two clinical subtypes are recognized: MSA with predominant cerebellar ataxia (MSA-C) and MSA with predominant parkinsonism (MSA-P). The aim of this study was to compare pathological features between MSA-C and MSA-P. Methods: Two autopsy confirmed cases with MSA were included from the Pusan National University Hospital Brain Bank. Case 1 had been clinically diagnosed as MSA-C and case 2 as MSA-P. The severity of neuronal loss and gliosis as well as the glial and neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions were semiquantitatively assessed in both striatonigral and olivopontocerebellar regions. Based on the grading system, pathological phenotypes of MSA were classified as striatonigral degeneration (SND) predominant (SND type), olivopontocerebellar degeneration (OPC) predominant (OPC type), or equivalent SND and OPC pathology (SND=OPC type). Results: Both cases showed widespread and abundant α-synuclein positive glial cytoplasmic inclusions in association with neurodegenerative changes in striatonigral or olivopontocerebellar structures, leading to the primary pathological diagnosis of MSA. Primary age-related tauopathy was incidentally found but Lewy bodies were not in both cases. The pathological phenotypes of MSA were MSA-OPC type in case 1 and MSA-SND=OPC type in case 2. Conclusions Our data suggest that clinical phenotypes of MSA reflect the pathological characteristics.

Purpose: To compare long-term disease-free survival (DFS) between patients receiving tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for gastric cancer (GC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective multicenter observational study enrolled 983 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy with consecutive AC with S-1 or CAPOX for stage II or III GC at 27 hospitals in Korea between February 2012 and December 2013. We conducted propensity score matching to reduce selection bias. Long-term oncologic outcomes, including DFS rate over 5 years (over-5yr DFS), were analyzed postoperatively. Results: The median and longest follow-up period were 59.0 and 87.6 months, respectively. DFS rate did not differ between patients who received S-1 and CAPOX for pathologic stage II (P=0.677) and stage III (P=0.899) GC. Moreover, hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence did not differ significantly between S-1 and CAPOX (reference) in stage II (HR, 1.846; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.693–4.919; P=0.220) and stage III (HR, 0.942; 95% CI, 0.664–1.337; P=0.738) GC. After adjustment for significance in multivariate analysis, pT (4 vs. 1) (HR, 11.667; 95% CI, 1.595–85.351; P=0.016), pN stage (0 vs. 3) (HR, 2.788; 95% CI, 1.502–5.174; P=0.001), and completion of planned chemotherapy (HR, 2.213; 95% CI, 1.618–3.028; P<0.001) were determined as independent prognostic factors for DFS. Conclusions S-1 and CAPOX AC regimens did not show significant difference in over-5yr DFS after curative gastrectomy in patients with stage II or III GC. The pT, pN stage, and completion of planned chemotherapy were prognostic factors for GC recurrence.

PURPOSE: To investigate the current status of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in Korea and the difference in efficacy of AC administered by surgical and medical oncologists in patients with stage II or III gastric cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study among 1,049 patients who underwent curative resection and received AC for stage II and III gastric cancers between February 2012 and December 2013 at 29 tertiary referral university hospitals in Korea. To minimize the influence of potential confounders on selection bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was used based on binary logistic regression analysis. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared between patients who received AC administered by medical oncologists or surgical oncologists. RESULTS: Between February 2012 and December 2013 in Korea, the most commonly prescribed AC by medical oncologists was tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1, 47.72%), followed by capecitabine with oxaliplatin (XELOX, 16.33%). After performing PSM, surgical oncologists (82.74%) completed AC as planned more often than medical oncologists (75.9%), with statistical significance (P=0.036). No difference in the 3-year DFS rates of stage II (P=0.567) or stage III (P=0.545) gastric cancer was found between the medical and surgical oncologist groups. CONCLUSIONS: S-1 monotherapy and XELOX are a main stay of AC, regardless of whether the prescribing physician is a medical or surgical oncologist. The better compliance with AC by surgical oncologists is a valid reason to advocate that surgical oncologists perform the treatment of AC for stage II or III gastric cancers.
Capecitabine ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant* ; Compliance ; Disease-Free Survival ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Korea* ; Logistic Models ; Observational Study ; Propensity Score ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies* ; Selection Bias ; Stomach Neoplasms*

A 62-year-old man presented with a one-year history of word finding difficulty, impaired single word comprehension and personality changes including aggression, apathy and eating change. Brain MRIs showed severe atrophy in the left anterior temporal lobe. The clinical syndromic diagnosis was semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. He died at age 70 of pneumonia. At autopsy, transactive response DNA-binding protein (TDP) immunoreactive long dystrophic neurites were predominantly found in the cerebral cortices, which were compatible with frontotemporal lobar degeneration-TDP type C pathology.
Aggression ; Apathy ; Aphasia, Primary Progressive ; Atrophy ; Autopsy ; Brain ; Cerebral Cortex ; Comprehension ; Diagnosis ; Eating ; Frontotemporal Dementia ; Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Middle Aged ; Neurites ; Pathology ; Pneumonia ; Semantics ; TDP-43 Proteinopathies ; Temporal Lobe

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether performing an assessment of myocardial deformation using speckle tracking imaging during the recovery period after dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) allows detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest discomfort. METHODS: DSE and coronary angiography were performed in 44 patients with chest discomfort. The mean global longitudinal peak systolic strain (GLS) was measured at rest, at low stress (dobutamine infusion rate of 10 microg/kg/min) and at recovery (5 min after cessation of dobutamine infusion) of DSE using automated function imaging with apical views. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was also performed in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. CAD was defined as having a > or = 70% diameter stenosis on coronary angiography or as having a FFR < 0.8. Patients were divided two groups based on the absence or presence of CAD [CAD (-) group vs. CAD (+) group]. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics and results of conventional echocardiography between the two groups. GLS at recovery was lower in the CAD (+) group than in the CAD (-) group (-18.0 +/- 3.4% vs. -21.0 +/- 1.9%, p = 0.003). The optimal cutoff of GLS at recovery for detection of CAD was -19% (sensitivity of 70.6%, specificity of 83.3%). CONCLUSION: Assessment of GLS at recovery of DSE is a reliable and objective method for detection of CAD. This finding may suggest that systolic myocardial stunning remains even after recovery of wall motion abnormalities in patients with CAD.
Constriction, Pathologic ; Coronary Angiography ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Coronary Stenosis ; Dobutamine ; Echocardiography ; Echocardiography, Stress* ; Humans ; Myocardial Stunning ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Thorax