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.

Purpose: To compare near-distance reading speeds across different intraocular lens (IOL) types using a Korean reading speed measurement application. Methods: Patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery and received trifocal IOL (Panoptix), extended depth of focus (EDoF) IOL (Vivity), or enhanced monofocal IOL (Eyhance) were enrolled. Korean reading speed and reading & speaking speed were measured using a Korean reading speed measurement application. Additionally, satisfaction with visual function in everyday life was assessed using a questionnaire. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in postoperative corrected distance visual acuity among the three groups (p = 0.71). The Panoptix group demonstrated significantly higher distance-corrected near visual acuity than the other two groups (p < 0.05). For letter sizes of logMAR 0.5 or larger, the Panoptix group exhibited significantly higher reading and reading & speaking speeds than the other two groups. For letter sizes of logMAR 0.8 or larger, the Vivity group showed significantly higher reading and reading & speaking speeds than the Eyhance group (p < 0.05). The Panoptix group showed significantly greater satisfaction with visual function in work at near distances, including that for activities such as reading a book. Conclusion The Panoptix trifocal IOL is expected to provide superior near-vision function and patient satisfaction than other IOL types.

Purpose: Oligoprogressive lesions are observed in a subset of patients who progress to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), while other lesions remain controlled by systemic therapy. This study evaluates the impact of progression-directed therapy (PDT) on these oligoprogressive lesions. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 40 patients diagnosed with oligoprogressive CRPC. PDT was performed for treating all progressive sites using radiotherapy. Fifteen patients received PDT using radiotherapy for all progressive sites (PDT group) while 25 had additional first-line systemic treatments (non-PDT group). In PDT group, 7 patients underwent PDT and unchanged systemic therapy (PDT-A group) and 8 patients underwent PDT with additional new line of systemic therapy on CRPC (PDT-B group). The Kaplan–Meier method was used to assess treatment outcomes. Results: The prostate specific antigen (PSA) nadir was significantly lower in PDT group compare to non-PDT group (p=0.007). A 50% PSA decline and complete PSA decline were observed in 13 patients (86.7%) and 10 patients (66.7%) of PDT group and in 18 patients (72.0%) and 11 patients (44.0%) of non-PDT group, respectively. The PSA-progression free survival of PDT-B group was significantly longer than non-PDT group. The median time to failure of first-line systemic therapy on CRPC was 30.2 months in patients in PDT group and 14.9 months in non-PDT group (p=0.014). PDT-B group showed a significantly longer time to progression than non-PDT group (p=0.025). Minimal PDT-related adverse events were observed. Conclusions PDT can delay progression of disease and enhance treatment efficacy with acceptable tolerability in oligoprogressive CRPC.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires significant experiences and skills and has various procedure-related complications, some of which can be severe and even result in the death of patients. Expanding ERCP availability has the advantage of increasing accessibility for patients. However, ERCP poses a substantial risk if performed without proper quality management. ERCP quality management is essential for both ensuring safe and successful procedures and meeting the social demands for enhanced healthcare competitiveness and quality assurance. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association established a task force to develop ERCP quality indicators (QIs) tailored to the Korean medical environment. Key questions for five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, and four post-procedure measures were formulated based on a literature search related to ERCP QIs and a comprehensive clinical review conducted by experts. The statements and recommendations regarding each QI item were selected through peer review. The developed ERCP QIs were reviewed by external experts based on the latest available evidence at the time of development.These domestically tailored ERCP QIs are expected to contribute considerably to improving ERCP quality in Korea.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma, a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements.Consequently, local ablation has become the first-line treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, preprocedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-Guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and post-treatment management of patients.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements. Consequently, local ablation has become the firstline treatment for early-stage HCC. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, pre-procedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and posttreatment management of patients.

Purpose: We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of kidney dynamic computed tomography (KDCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for the assessment of small renal mass (SRM) (≤4 cm). Materials and Methods: Seventy-six patients with SRM (mean age, 58.4±13.1 years) who underwent renal biopsy (n=11) or nephrectomy (partial or radical) (n=65) were enrolled. All patients underwent KDCT, MRI, and CEUS before renal biopsy or nephrectomy. Results: The mean maximal tumor size was 21.0±9.8 mm. The mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score was 7.0±1.7. Fifty-six patients had renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (clear cell, 42; papillary, 7; chromophobe, 5; succinate dehydrogenase deficient, 1; unspecified RCC, 1). Twenty patients had a benign tumor (angiomyolipoma, 11; oncocytoma, 3; others, 6). Clinicopathologic variables were comparable in RCC and benign groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of KDCT were 89.3%, 10.0%, 73.5%, and 25.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MRI were 89.3%, 10.0%, 73.5%, and 25.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEUS were 85.7%, 50.0%, 82.8%, and 55.6%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of KDCT, MRI, and CEUS were 68.4%, 68.4%, and 76.3%, respectively. In a subgroup analysis based on clinical tumor size of 10 mm and 20 mm, CEUS also showed the highest diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions CEUS had the highest specificity, PPV, and NPV and may help improve the assessment of SRM.