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.

Background: A decline in masticatory function may indicate brain dysfunction related to dementia, but the relationship between masticatory function and dementia risk remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether masticatory function is associated with the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Methods: Data were obtained from the nationwide prospective cohort study of randomly sampled community-dwelling Koreans aged ≥ 60 years. The 5,064 non-demented participants, whose number of chewing cycles per bite was assessed by clinical interview, were followed for 8 years with biennial assessments of cognitive performance and clinical diagnoses of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Structural brain magnetic resonance imaging was collected from a subset of cohort participants and their spouses for imaging analyses. Results: Males who chewed ≥ 30 cycles/bite had faster decline in global cognition and memory function and were at higher risk for incident all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18–7.18) and AD (HR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.14–9.11) compared to males with less than 10 cycles/bite. Additionally, increased chewing cycles in males were associated with reduced brain volume, particularly in regions involved in compensatory cognitive control of mastication. There was no significant association between chewing cycles and the risk of dementia or brain volume in females. Conclusion Older men who frequently chew their meals could be considered a notable population at risk for dementia who should be carefully assessed for their cognitive trajectories.

Background: and Purpose The accurate prediction of functional outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is crucial for informed clinical decision-making and optimal resource utilization. As such, this study aimed to construct an ensemble deep learning model that integrates multimodal imaging and clinical data to predict the 90-day functional outcomes after AIS. Methods: We used data from the Korean Stroke Neuroimaging Initiative database, a prospective multicenter stroke registry to construct an ensemble model integrated individual 3D convolutional neural networks for diffusion-weighted imaging and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), along with a deep neural network for clinical data, to predict 90-day functional independence after AIS using a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 3–6. To evaluate the performance of the ensemble model, we compared the area under the curve (AUC) of the proposed method with that of individual models trained on each modality to identify patients with AIS with an mRS score of 3–6. Results: Of the 2,606 patients with AIS, 993 (38.1%) achieved an mRS score of 3–6 at 90 days post-stroke. Our model achieved AUC values of 0.830 (standard cross-validation [CV]) and 0.779 (time-based CV), which significantly outperformed the other models relying on single modalities: b-value of 1,000 s/mm2 (P<0.001), apparent diffusion coefficient map (P<0.001), FLAIR (P<0.001), and clinical data (P=0.004). Conclusion The integration of multimodal imaging and clinical data resulted in superior prediction of the 90-day functional outcomes in AIS patients compared to the use of a single data modality.

Background: Primary cicatricial alopecia (PCA) is a rare disease that causes irreversible destruction of hair follicles and affects the quality of life (QOL). Objective: We aimed to investigate the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, and real-world diagnosis and treatment status of patients with PCA. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was administered to patients with PCA and their dermatologists. Patients aged between 19 and 75 years who visited one of 27 dermatology departments between September 2021 and September 2022 were included. Results: In total, 274 patients were included. The male-to-female ratio was 1:1.47, with a mean age of 45.7 years. Patients with neutrophilic and mixed PCA were predominantly male and younger than those with lymphocytic PCA. Among patients with lymphocytic PCA, lichen planopilaris was the most common type, and among those with neutrophilic PCA, folliculitis decalvans was the most common type. Among the total patients, 28.8% were previously diagnosed with PCA, 47.0% were diagnosed with PCA at least 6 months after their first hospital visit, 20.0% received early treatment within 3 months of disease onset, and 54.4% received steady treatment. More than half of the patients had a moderate to severe impairment in QOL. Topical/intralesional steroid injections were the most common treatment. Systemic immunosuppressants were frequently prescribed to patients with lymphocytic PCA, and antibiotics were mostly prescribed to patients with neutrophilic PCA. Conclusion This study provides information on the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, diagnosis, and treatment status of Korean patients with PCA. This can help dermatologists educate patients with PCA to understand the necessity for early diagnosis and steady treatment.

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.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between reduced glutathione (GSH), a key molecule of the antioxidant defense system in the blood, and glutathione reductase (GR), which reduces oxidized glutathione (glutathione disulfide [GSSG]) to GSH and maintains the redox balance, with the prevalence of Alzheimer’s dementia and cognitive decline. Methods: In all, 20 participants with Alzheimer’s dementia who completed the third follow-up clinical evaluation over 6 years were selected, and 20 participants with normal cognition were selected after age and sex matching. The GSH and GR concentrations were the independent variables. Clinical diagnosis and neurocognitive test scores were the dependent variables indicating cognitive status. Results: The higher the level of GR, the greater the possibility of having normal cognition than of developing Alzheimer’s dementia. Additionally, the higher the level of GR, the higher the neurocognitive test scores. However, this association was not significant for GSH. After 6 years, the conversion rate from normal cognition to cognitive impairment was significantly higher in the lower 50th percentile of the GR group than in the upper 50th percentile. Conclusion The higher the GR, the lower the prevalence of Alzheimer’s dementia and incidence of cognitive impairment and the higher the cognitive test scores. Therefore, GR is a potential protective biomarker against Alzheimer’s dementia and cognitive decline.

Background: and Purpose The congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (CHA2DS2-VASc) and hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) scores have been validated in estimating the risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding, respectively, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study investigated stroke-specific predictors of major bleeding in patients with stroke and AF who were taking oral anticoagulants (OACs). Methods: Subjects were selected from patients enrolled in the Korean ATrial fibrillaTion EvaluatioN regisTry in Ischemic strOke patieNts (K-ATTENTION) nationwide multicenter registry between 2013 and 2015. Patients were excluded if they were not taking OACs, had no brain imaging data, or had intracranial bleeding directly related to the index stroke. Major bleeding was defined according to International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between clinical variables and major bleeding and Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to analyze event-free survival. Results: Of a total of 3,213 patients, 1,414 subjects (mean age of 72.6 years, 52.5% males) were enrolled in this study. Major bleeding was reported in 34 patients during the median follow-up period of 1.73 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, p=0.006), hypertension (HR 3.18, p=0.030), persistent AF type (HR 2.51, p=0.016), and initial hemoglobin level (HR 0.74, p=0.001) were independently associated with major bleeding risk. Except for hypertension, these associations remained significant after adjusting for the HAS-BLED score. Intracranial atherosclerosis presented a trend of association without statistical significance (HR 2.21, p=0.050). Conclusions This study found that major bleeding risk was independently associated with stroke-specific factors in anticoagulated patients with stroke and AF. This has the clinical implication that baseline characteristics of patients with stroke and AF should be considered in secondary prevention, which would bring the net clinical benefit of balancing recurrent stroke prevention with minimal bleeding complications.