Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

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.