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.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

Background: Enavogliflozin is a novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor currently under clinical development. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of enavogliflozin as an add-on to metformin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) against dapagliflozin. Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study, 200 patients were randomized to receive enavogliflozin 0.3 mg/day (n=101) or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n=99) in addition to ongoing metformin therapy for 24 weeks. The primary objective of the study was to prove the non-inferiority of enavogliflozin to dapagliflozin in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change at week 24 (non-inferiority margin of 0.35%) (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04634500). Results: Adjusted mean change of HbA1c at week 24 was –0.80% with enavogliflozin and –0.75% with dapagliflozin (difference, –0.04%; 95% confidence interval, –0.21% to 0.12%). Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% were 61% and 62%, respectively. Adjusted mean change of fasting plasma glucose at week 24 was –32.53 and –29.14 mg/dL. An increase in urine glucose-creatinine ratio (60.48 vs. 44.94, P<0.0001) and decrease in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (–1.85 vs. –1.31, P=0.0041) were significantly greater with enavogliflozin than dapagliflozin at week 24. Beneficial effects of enavogliflozin on body weight (–3.77 kg vs. –3.58 kg) and blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, –5.93/–5.41 mm Hg vs. –6.57/–4.26 mm Hg) were comparable with those of dapagliflozin, and both drugs were safe and well-tolerated. Conclusion Enavogliflozin added to metformin significantly improved glycemic control in patients with T2DM and was non-inferior to dapagliflozin 10 mg, suggesting enavogliflozin as a viable treatment option for patients with inadequate glycemic control on metformin alone.

Purpose: Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has been a useful tool for novel gene discovery of various disease categories, further increasing the diagnostic yield. This study aimed to investigate the clinical utility of WES prospectively in undiagnosed genetic diseases. Materials and Methods: WES tests were performed on 110 patients (age range, 0-28 years) with suspected rare genetic diseases. WES tests were performed at a single reference laboratory and the variants reported were reviewed by clinical geneticists, pediatricians, neurologists, and laboratory physicians. Results: The patients’ symptoms varied with abnormalities in the head or neck, including facial dysmorphism, being the most common, identified in 85.4% of patients, followed by abnormalities in the nervous system (83.6%). The average number of systems manifesting phenotypic abnormalities per patient was 3.9±1.7. The age at presentation was 2.1±2.7 years old (range, 0-15 years), and the age at WES testing was 6.7±5.3 years (range, 0-28 years). In total, WES test reported 100 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance for 79 out of 110 probands (71.8%). Of the 79 patients with positive or inconclusive calls, 55 (50.0%) patients were determined to have good genotype-phenotype correlations after careful review. Further clinical reassessment and family member testing determined 45 (40.9%) patients to have been identified with a molecular diagnosis. Conclusion This study showed a 40.9% diagnostic yield for WES test for a heterogeneous patient cohort with suspected rare genetic diseases. WES could be the feasible genetic test modality to overcome the diversity and complexity of rare disease diagnostics.

Factors such as location, volume, and the type of neoplasm complicate achieving tumor control. Electrochemotherapy (ECT) is a supplementary treatment for inoperable neoplasms in veterinary patients. Three dogs were diagnosed with a tumor. Two were squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and the other was liposarcoma, each with a single tumor with the size range of 1 to 5 cm. The tumor locations were the cervical, oral, and abdominal cavity. ECT was selected as a treatment. Bleomycin was injected intratumorally at the dose of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/cm3. Five minutes after the injection, electric pulses applied in a sequence of eight pulses lasting 100 µsec each, were delivered in 1,000 V/cm. An evaluation was performed after 1 week, and the next session was administered 2 weeks later. In a patient with oral SCC, the tumor was in partial remission after two sessions of ECT. Another patient with SCC on her neck was showed complete remission after 2 weeks of ECT administration. A third patient showed stable disease for 8 weeks. Complications were mild and transient and included skin necrosis, edema, local pain, and gait disturbance. ECT is a valid adjuvant, especially for inoperable, cutaneous, or accessible intra-abdominal tumors.