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: The goal of induction therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) is to achieve adequate disease control. Current guidelines favor triplet (bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone;VRd) or quadruplet regimens (daratumumab, bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone;D-VTd). In the absence of a direct comparison between two treatment regimens, we conducted this study to compare the outcomes and safety of VRd and D-VTd. Methods: Newly diagnosed MM patients aged ＞18 years who underwent induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) between November 2020 and December 2021 were identified. Finally, patients with VRd (N=37) and those with D-VTd (N=43) were enrolled. Results: After induction, 10.8% of the VRd group showed stringent complete remission (sCR), 21.6% showed complete response (CR), 35.1% showed very good partial response (VGPR), and 32.4% showed partial response (PR). Of the D-VTd group, 9.3% showed sCR, 34.9% CR, 48.8% VGPR, and 4.2% PR (VGPR or better: 67.6% in VRd vs. 93% in D-VTd, P =0.004). After ASCT, 68.6% of the VRd group showed CR or sCR, while 90.5% of the D-VTd group showed CR or sCR (P=0.016). VRd was associated with an increased incidence of skin rash (P=0.044). Other than rashes, there were no significant differences in terms of adverse events between the two groups. Conclusion Our study supports the use of a front-line quadruplet induction regimen containing a CD38 monoclonal antibody for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM.

Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Korea, need remains for pangenotypic regimens that can be used in the presence of hepatic impairment, comorbidities, or prior treatment failure. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir for 12 weeks in HCV-infected Korean adults. Methods: This Phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study included 2 cohorts. In Cohort 1, participants with HCV genotype 1 or 2 and who were treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with interferon-based treatments, received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir 400/100 mg/day. In Cohort 2, HCV genotype 1 infected individuals who previously received an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen ≥ 4 weeks received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir 400/100/100 mg/day. Decompensated cirrhosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary endpoint was SVR12, defined as HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL 12 weeks following treatment. Results: Of 53 participants receiving sofosbuvir–velpatasvir, 52 (98.1%) achieved SVR12. The single participant who did not achieve SVR12 experienced an asymptomatic Grade 3 ASL/ALT elevation on day 15 and discontinued treatment. The event resolved without intervention. All 33 participants (100%) treated with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir achieved SVR 12. Overall, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir were safe and well tolerated. Three participants (5.6%) in Cohort 1 and 1 participant (3.0%) in Cohort 2 had serious adverse events, but none were considered treatment-related. No deaths or grade 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir or sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir was safe and resulted in high SVR12 rates in Korean HCV patients.

Background and Objectives: Dizziness has diverse underlying causes, so the diagnosis is challenging especially in the emergency room. The aim of this study is to identify clinical characteristics of patients’ complaints of dizziness in the emergency room.Subjects and Method We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 10367 patients who visited the emergency room with the chief complaint of dizziness from January 2016 to December 2020. Patients’ clinical information including age, sex, final diagnoses, consulting departments, treatment results and seasonal incidences were thoroughly assessed. Results: Of the total patients who visited the emergency room, 4.64% complained of dizziness. The mean age of patients was 57.6 years old. The most common age group was over 70’s (28.1%). There were 6322 (61.1%) female patients, while 4035 (38.9%) were male patients. Nearly half 4932 (47.6%) of the patients were managed by the emergency department, followed by 3204, who were managed by the department of otolaryngorhinology (30.9%), and 1166 (11.2%) managed by the neurology department. The dizziness was classified as peripheral vertigo (33.8%), nonspecific dizziness (27.4%), medical conditions (13.9%), central dizziness (11.0%), cardiac dizziness (6.2%), and other miscellaneous causes of trauma, neoplasm and psychogenic causes (7.7%). In peripheral vertigo, the incidence of BPPV, vestibular neuritis and Meniere’s disease were 23.5%, 8.8% and 0.6%, respectively. Conclusion Peripheral vertigo accounted for the majority for the patients with chief complaints of dizziness in the emergency room. As diverse medical conditions may cause dizziness, specialized departments have to be involved in the diagnostic process of dizziness.

Migrant workers face challenging working conditions, resulting in physical and mental vulnerability. The objective is to identify their health vulnerabilities and ensure their right to health. Health records of 163 migrant workers (113 males and 50 females) (Group A) and 163 Korean citizens (Group B) visiting our institution were analyzed from August 2021 to July 2022. Both groups underwent urine analysis, chest radiography, and various blood tests. Statistical analysis using independent t-tests and χ2 tests was performed. Group A had a significantly higher rate of hepatitis B virus surface antigen-positive patients, lower vaccination rates for hepatitis B, and poorer nutritional status compared to Group B. Group B generally exhibited higher levels of albumin, glucose, total cholesterol, and thyroidstimulating hormone. There were significant quantitative differences in multiple blood cell and hemoglobin measurements between the two groups. These findings emphasize the need for policy support and public awareness to protect the health rights of migrant workers.

Acquired fluconazole resistance (FR) in bloodstream infection (BSI) isolates of Candida albicans is rare. We investigated the FR mechanisms and clinical features of 14 fluconazole non-susceptible (FNS; FR and fluconazole-susceptible dose-dependent) BSI isolates of C. albicans recovered from Korean multicenter surveillance studies during 2006–2021. Mutations causing amino acid substitutions (AASs) in the drug-target gene ERG11 and the FR-associated transcription factor genes TAC1 , MRR1, and UPC2 of the 14 FNS isolates were compared with those of 12 fluconazole-susceptible isolates. Of the 14 FNS isolates, eight and seven had Erg11p (K143R, F145L, or G464S) and Tac1p (T225A, R673L, A736T, or A736V) AASs, respectively, which were previously described in FR isolates. Novel Erg11p, Tac1p, and Mrr1p AASs were observed in two, four, and one FNS isolates, respectively. Combined Erg11p and Tac1p AASs were observed in seven FNS isolates. None of the FR-associated Upc2p AASs were detected. Of the 14 patients, only one had previous azole exposure, and the 30-day mortality rate was 57.1% (8/14). Our data show that Erg11p and Tac1p AASs are likely to contribute to FR in C. albicans BSI isolates in Korea and that most FNS C. albicans BSIs develop without azole exposure.