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.

A 44-year-old man had been pointed out to have a heart murmur during his elementary school days. He came to us complaining of chest pain and palpitation. He was diagnosed to have severe aortic regurgitation caused by prolapse of the right coronary cusp, and the left ventricular function was depressed. At surgery, the aortic valve was repaired with the RCC resuspension technique, but regurgitation was not controlled because the RCC annulus was retracted by natural supracristal closure of the ventricular septal defect. We proceeded to the Ross procedure. A pulmonary autograft was harvested and sewed in the aortic annulus. The right ventricular outflow tract was reconstructed using a stentless bioprosthetic valve with glutaraldehyde-treated bovine pericardium. He was discharged after a straightforward postoperative course.

Background: and Purpose Patients with cluster headache (CH) exhibit impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, there have been few studies related to the HRQoL of patients with CH from Asian backgrounds. This study aimed to determine the impact of CH on HRQoL and to identify the factors affecting HRQoL in patients with CH during cluster periods. Methods: This prospective study enrolled patients with CH from 17 headache clinics in South Korea between September 2016 and February 2021. The study aimed to determine HRQoL in patients with CH using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index and the time trade-off (TTO) method. Age- and sex-matched headache-free participants were recruited as a control group. Results: The study included 423 patients with CH who experienced a cluster period at the time. EQ-5D scores were lower in patients with CH (0.88±0.43, mean±standard deviation) than in the controls (0.99±0.33, p<0.001). The TTO method indicated that 58 (13.6%) patients with CH exhibited moderate-to-severe HRQoL deterioration. The HRQoL states in patients with CH were associated with current smoking patterns, headache severity, frequency, and duration, and scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), 6-item Headache Impact Test, and 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the HRQoL states in patients with CH were negatively correlated with the daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, and GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores. Conclusions Patients with CH experienced a worse quality of life during cluster periods compared with the headache-free controls, but the degree of HRQoL deterioration varied among them. The daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, anxiety, and depression were factors associated with HRQoL deterioration severity in patients with CH.

The aim of this study was to develop evidence-based recommendations for determining the surgical extent in patients with locally invasive differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Locally invasive DTC with gross extrathyroidal extension invading surrounding anatomical structures may lead to several functional deficits and poor oncological outcomes. At present, the optimal extent of surgery in locally invasive DTC remains a matter of debate, and there are no adequate guidelines. On October 8, 2021, four experts searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases; the identified papers were reviewed by 39 experts in thyroid and head and neck surgery. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence, and to develop and report recommendations. The strength of a recommendation reflects the confidence of a guideline panel that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh any undesirable effects, across all patients for whom the recommendation is applicable. After completing the draft guidelines, Delphi questionnaires were completed by members of the Korean Society of Head and Neck Surgery. Twenty-seven evidence-based recommendations were made for several factors, including the preoperative workup; surgical extent of thyroidectomy; surgery for cancer invading the strap muscles, recurrent laryngeal nerve, laryngeal framework, trachea, or esophagus; and surgery for patients with central and lateral cervical lymph node involvement. Evidence-based guidelines were devised to help clinicians make safer and more efficient clinical decisions for the optimal surgical treatment of patients with locally invasive DTC.

Background: Data illustrating the impact of atopic dermatitis (AD) on lives of adults with AD in South Korea are limited. Objective: To assess the AD disease severity and its impact on quality of life (QoL) in patients with AD from South Korea. Methods: Patients with AD utilizing the specialist dermatology services of major hospitals in South Korea were assessed for disease severity using Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, for QoL using Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (for QoL), and for comorbidities and treatment experience via retrospective review of 12-month medical records. Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were also measured. Results: Of the 1,163 patients, 695 (59.8%) were men (mean age [years]±standard deviation: 31.6±12.1). Overall, 52.9% (n=615) patients had moderate-to-severe disease (EASI>7).The QoL of 72.3% (n=840) patients was affected moderately-to-severely (DLQI score: 6~30).Systemic immunosuppressants were used ≥1 over past 12 months in 51.9% (n=603) patients, and the most commonly used were cyclosporines (45.7%, n=531) and systemic corticosteroids (40.5%, n=471). Approximately, 10.8% (n=126) patients consulted or received treatment for AD-related eye problem. Of these, 40% (n=50) patients reported poor, very poor, or completely blind status; approximately, 16.7% patients (n=192) reported having depression or anxiety; and 35.5% (n=410) reported suicidal ideation or suicidal attempt. Conclusion A large proportion of patients had moderate-to-severe AD, a compromised QoL, and ocular or mental health comorbidities, indicating a high disease burden despite systemic treatment. These findings highlight the importance of a holistic approach for the evaluation and treatment of patients with AD.

Background: and Purpose Epidemiologic data suggest that cluster headache (CH) is significantly associated with cigarette smoking. The aim of this study was to determine differences in features between patients with a smoking history and those who are never-smokers, using data from a prospective multicenter registry. Methods: Data used in this study were obtained from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry that collected data from consecutive patients diagnosed with CH. We compared clinical and demographic features between ever-smokers (current or former smokers) and never-smokers. Results: This study enrolled 250 patients who were diagnosed with CH, of which 152 (60.8%) were ever-smokers and 98 (39.2%) were never-smokers. The age at CH onset was significantly lower in the never-smoker group than in the ever-smoker group [27.1±12.9 years vs. 30.6± 10.9 years (mean±standard deviation), p=0.024]. Seasonal rhythmicity (58.1% vs. 44.7%, p= 0.038) and triptan responsiveness (100% vs. 85.1%, p=0.001) were higher in never-smokers, while other clinical features such as pain severity, duration, attack frequency, and associated autonomic symptoms did not differ significantly between the groups. The male-to-female ratio was markedly higher in ever-smokers (29.4:1) than in never-smokers (1.7:1). Conclusions Most of the clinical features did not differ significantly between patients with a smoking history and never-smokers. However, the age at CH onset, sex ratio, and seasonal rhythmicity were significantly associated with smoking history.