BACKGROUND: The optimal endoscopic screening interval for early gastric cancer (EGC) detection still remains controversial. Thus, we performed this prospective study to clarify the optimal interval between endoscopic examinations for EGC detection. METHODS: A questionnaire survey for penultimate endoscopy and gastric cancer (GC) diagnosis interval was used; the findings were then analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to GC type and endoscopic examinations intervals. RESULTS: A total of 843 patients were enrolled. The endoscopic GC detection interval (P < 0.001), tumor location (P < 0.001), tumor size (P < 0.001), histology (P < 0.001), tumor stage (P < 0.001), and treatment modality (P < 0.001) showed significant differences in the univariate analysis between EGC and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Endoscopic examination intervals below 2 years and 3 years were associated with higher proportions of EGC detection (adjusted odds ratio, 2.458 and 3.022, respectively) (P < 0.001). The patients with endoscopic examination to GC diagnosis interval of < 2 years showed significant differences in tumor size (P < 0.001), tumor stage (P < 0.001), and treatment modality (P < 0.001) compared to those with intervals of > 2 years and without screening. Similar results were observed in those with < 3-year intervals. CONCLUSION: Triennial endoscopic screening might be as effective as biennial screening in increasing the detection rate of EGC and the risk of subsequent curable endoscopic resections.
Diagnosis ; Endoscopy ; Humans ; Mass Screening* ; Odds Ratio ; Prospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms*

Purpose: Diagnostic biomarkers of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have been used for early detection to reduce its dismal survival rate. However, clinically feasible biomarkers are still rare. Therefore, in this study, we developed an automated multi-marker enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit using 3 biomarkers (leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein [LRG1], transthyretin [TTR], and CA 19-9) that were previously discovered and proposed a diagnostic model for PDAC based on this kit for clinical usage. Methods: Individual LRG1, TTR, and CA 19-9 panels were combined into a single automated ELISA panel and tested on 728 plasma samples, including PDAC (n = 381) and normal samples (n = 347). The consistency between individual panels of 3 biomarkers and the automated multi-panel ELISA kit were accessed by correlation. The diagnostic model was developed using logistic regression according to the automated ELISA kit to predict the risk of pancreatic cancer (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups). Results: The Pearson correlation coefficient of predicted values between the triple-marker automated ELISA panel and the former individual ELISA was 0.865. The proposed model provided reliable prediction results with a positive predictive value of 92.05%, negative predictive value of 90.69%, specificity of 90.69%, and sensitivity of 92.05%, which all simultaneously exceed 90% cutoff value. Conclusion This diagnostic model based on the triple ELISA kit showed better diagnostic performance than previous markers for PDAC. In the future, it needs external validation to be used in the clinic.

Aging has become a global problem, and the interest in healthy aging is growing. Healthy aging involves a focus on the maintenance of the function and well-being of elderly adults, rather than a specific disease. Thus, the management of frailty, which is an accumulated decline in function, is important for healthy aging. The adaptation method was used to develop clinical practice guidelines on frailty management that are applicable in primary care settings. The guidelines were developed in three phases: preparation (organization of committees and establishment of the scope of development), literature screening and evaluation (selection of the clinical practice guidelines to be adapted and evaluation of the guidelines using the Korean Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool), and confirmation of recommendations (three rounds of Delphi consensus and internal and external reviews). A total of 16 recommendations (five recommendations for diagnosis and assessment, 11 recommendations for intervention of frailty) were made through the guideline development process. These clinical practice guidelines provide overall guidance on the identification, evaluation, intervention, and monitoring of frailty, making them applicable in primary care settings. As aging and “healthy aging” become more and more important, these guidelines are also expected to increase in clinical usefulness.