Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

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 and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

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 and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Objectives: Eveningness predominates in adolescence. Morningness has been reported to be associated with mental toughness via resilience. Morningness could be related to healthy sleep habits and a good personality. Methods: Sleep-related behaviors, such as weekend oversleep, social jetlag, and daytime sunlight exposure between 10:00 and 15:00, were evaluated using sleep-related questionnaires. Morningness-eveningness questionnaire, insomnia severity index, Epworth sleepiness scale, hospital anxiety and depression scale and defense style questionnaire were used. This study includes 1,610 high school students. Results: Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that morningness is predicted by male sex (β=0.115, t=4.769, p<0.001) and greater adaptive (β=0.092, t=3.506, p<0.001) and self-suppressive defense styles (β=0.072, t=2.192, p=0.029) and lesser immature defense styles (β=-0.163, t=-4.782, p<0.001) after controlling for age, sleep quality, depression, anxiety. Morningness is also predicted by greater sublimation (β=0.09, t=3.541, p<0.001) and reaction formation (β=0.112, t=4.488, p<0.001) and lesser consumption (β=-0.062, t=-2.501, p=0.012), passive aggression (β=-0.101, t=-3.747, p<0.001) and withdrawal (β=-0.084, t=-2.955, p=0.003), and male sex (β=0.117, t=4.896, p<0.001) after controlling for age, sleep quality, depression, and anxiety. Conclusion Morniness in adolescence may be related to a positive personality. Promoting morningness might be related to healthy development in personality.

Objectives: This study aims to examine the differences in spectral analysis of waking electroencephalography (EEG) patterns between patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) experiencing excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and matched healthy participants, to gain insights into the neurophysiological underpinnings of daytime impairments. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted involving 17 patients with moderate to severe OSA confirmed by overnight polysomnography (PSG). These patients had ≥15 per hour apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) and ≥11 Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). EEG recordings were captured within 30 minutes of awakening. A corresponding group of the equal number of age and sex-matched healthy participants was also analyzed for comparative purposes. Spectral analysis of quantitative EEG (qEEG) of patients with OSA compared with that of an equal number of age- and sex-matched healthy participants. Results: The analysis included 17 patients (16 males, average age 57.2 years) with moderate to severe OSA experiencing EDS (mean AHI 38.1±20.5; ESS 14.4±3.2). The patients with OSA exhibited altered sleep architecture during diagnostic PSG, significantly higher EEG delta band power in the frontal regions upon awakening after night sleep, and decreased connection of delta band in frontal area than normal participants (3.78±5.53 vs. 3.22±0.98 μV2, p=0.03). Conclusions The study demonstrated difference in delta activity and connectivity in the frontal area between patients with OSA experiencing EDS and the control group. These findings suggest awakening qEEG in OSA may helpful to guide or enhance understanding of daytime functional impairment and EDS.