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.

Objective: To analyze the relationship between pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Korean National Health checkup and insurance data from 2002 to 2019. Women who used MHT for more than 6 months between 2002 and 2011 were included in the MHT group; postmenopausal women with no MHT use comprised the non-MHT group. Results: In the non-MHT group, there were 1,001,350 women, while the MHT group had 353,206 women. Tibolone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.87; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.818-0.926) and combined estrogen plus progestin by the manufacturer (CEPM) (aHR, 0.821; 99% CI, 0.758-0.89) were associated with reduced POP risk. The other oral MHT groups and the transdermal estrogen group showed no significant difference in POP risk compared with the non-MHT group (other oral MHT: aHR, 1.045; 99% CI, 0.941-1.161) (transdermal estrogen: aHR, 1.252; 99% CI, 0.731-2.145). Lower body mass index (BMI) (<18.5) was associated with reduced POP risk (aHR, 0.822; 99% CI, 0.698-0.968), while a BMI between 23 and 29.9 was associated with increased risk (BMI 23-24.9: aHR, 1.143; 99% CI, 1.088-1.2) (BMI 25-29.9: aHR, 1.173; 99% CI, 1.12-1.228). All parities had a higher POP risk than parity 1 (parity 0 or no response: aHR, 1.785; 99% CI, 1.589-2.005; parity 2: aHR, 1.434; 99% CI, 1.292-1.592; parity ≥3: aHR, 1.916; 99% CI, 1.712-2.144). Conclusion Tibolone and CEPM use were associated with reduced POP risk in postmenopausal women. Other MHT types showed no significant association with POP.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Objective: To analyze the relationship between pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Korean National Health checkup and insurance data from 2002 to 2019. Women who used MHT for more than 6 months between 2002 and 2011 were included in the MHT group; postmenopausal women with no MHT use comprised the non-MHT group. Results: In the non-MHT group, there were 1,001,350 women, while the MHT group had 353,206 women. Tibolone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.87; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.818-0.926) and combined estrogen plus progestin by the manufacturer (CEPM) (aHR, 0.821; 99% CI, 0.758-0.89) were associated with reduced POP risk. The other oral MHT groups and the transdermal estrogen group showed no significant difference in POP risk compared with the non-MHT group (other oral MHT: aHR, 1.045; 99% CI, 0.941-1.161) (transdermal estrogen: aHR, 1.252; 99% CI, 0.731-2.145). Lower body mass index (BMI) (<18.5) was associated with reduced POP risk (aHR, 0.822; 99% CI, 0.698-0.968), while a BMI between 23 and 29.9 was associated with increased risk (BMI 23-24.9: aHR, 1.143; 99% CI, 1.088-1.2) (BMI 25-29.9: aHR, 1.173; 99% CI, 1.12-1.228). All parities had a higher POP risk than parity 1 (parity 0 or no response: aHR, 1.785; 99% CI, 1.589-2.005; parity 2: aHR, 1.434; 99% CI, 1.292-1.592; parity ≥3: aHR, 1.916; 99% CI, 1.712-2.144). Conclusion Tibolone and CEPM use were associated with reduced POP risk in postmenopausal women. Other MHT types showed no significant association with POP.

Objective: To analyze the relationship between pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Korean National Health checkup and insurance data from 2002 to 2019. Women who used MHT for more than 6 months between 2002 and 2011 were included in the MHT group; postmenopausal women with no MHT use comprised the non-MHT group. Results: In the non-MHT group, there were 1,001,350 women, while the MHT group had 353,206 women. Tibolone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.87; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.818-0.926) and combined estrogen plus progestin by the manufacturer (CEPM) (aHR, 0.821; 99% CI, 0.758-0.89) were associated with reduced POP risk. The other oral MHT groups and the transdermal estrogen group showed no significant difference in POP risk compared with the non-MHT group (other oral MHT: aHR, 1.045; 99% CI, 0.941-1.161) (transdermal estrogen: aHR, 1.252; 99% CI, 0.731-2.145). Lower body mass index (BMI) (<18.5) was associated with reduced POP risk (aHR, 0.822; 99% CI, 0.698-0.968), while a BMI between 23 and 29.9 was associated with increased risk (BMI 23-24.9: aHR, 1.143; 99% CI, 1.088-1.2) (BMI 25-29.9: aHR, 1.173; 99% CI, 1.12-1.228). All parities had a higher POP risk than parity 1 (parity 0 or no response: aHR, 1.785; 99% CI, 1.589-2.005; parity 2: aHR, 1.434; 99% CI, 1.292-1.592; parity ≥3: aHR, 1.916; 99% CI, 1.712-2.144). Conclusion Tibolone and CEPM use were associated with reduced POP risk in postmenopausal women. Other MHT types showed no significant association with POP.

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/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Objective: To analyze the relationship between pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Korean National Health checkup and insurance data from 2002 to 2019. Women who used MHT for more than 6 months between 2002 and 2011 were included in the MHT group; postmenopausal women with no MHT use comprised the non-MHT group. Results: In the non-MHT group, there were 1,001,350 women, while the MHT group had 353,206 women. Tibolone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.87; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.818-0.926) and combined estrogen plus progestin by the manufacturer (CEPM) (aHR, 0.821; 99% CI, 0.758-0.89) were associated with reduced POP risk. The other oral MHT groups and the transdermal estrogen group showed no significant difference in POP risk compared with the non-MHT group (other oral MHT: aHR, 1.045; 99% CI, 0.941-1.161) (transdermal estrogen: aHR, 1.252; 99% CI, 0.731-2.145). Lower body mass index (BMI) (<18.5) was associated with reduced POP risk (aHR, 0.822; 99% CI, 0.698-0.968), while a BMI between 23 and 29.9 was associated with increased risk (BMI 23-24.9: aHR, 1.143; 99% CI, 1.088-1.2) (BMI 25-29.9: aHR, 1.173; 99% CI, 1.12-1.228). All parities had a higher POP risk than parity 1 (parity 0 or no response: aHR, 1.785; 99% CI, 1.589-2.005; parity 2: aHR, 1.434; 99% CI, 1.292-1.592; parity ≥3: aHR, 1.916; 99% CI, 1.712-2.144). Conclusion Tibolone and CEPM use were associated with reduced POP risk in postmenopausal women. Other MHT types showed no significant association with POP.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.