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.

Purpose: The selection of primary tumor resection (PTR) vs. self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) in obstructive unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) is critical, profoundly impacting patient outcome. This study evaluates the influence of PTR and SEMS on overall survival (OS) in conjunction with chemotherapy. Methods: The analysis included 137 patients with obstructive, unresectable stage IV CRC who underwent PTR or attempted SEMS placement. The primary objective was to assess the OS of patients, specifically examining how PTR and SEMS interventions influence these survival outcomes. Results: In a cohort of 137 patients with obstructive, unresectable stage IV CRC, 30 initially opted for PTR, while stent placement was attempted in 107 cases. Following 14 stent failures, which resulted in 8 diversions and 6 additional PTR interventions, exclusions due to elective surgeries led to a final analysis of 36 PTR and 72 SEMS cases. Cox regression analysis identified no significant survival advantage between PTR and SEMS interventions (hazard ratio [HR], 0.848; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.555–1.298; P = 0.449). Critical findings highlighted that the absence of chemotherapy markedly reduced survival prospects (HR, 1.963; 95% CI, 1.200–3.211; P = 0.007). These insights were substantiated through propensity score matching. Conclusions The comparative analysis reveals that neither PTR nor SEMS offers a definitive survival advantage in managing obstructive, unresectable stage IV CRC. However, the necessity for subsequent invasive interventions is notably lower in the PTR group.

Objectives: Early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) amyloidosis and the establishment of appropriate treatment and follow-up strategies remains challenging. This study aimed to elucidate the endoscopic characteristics and clinical courses of patients with isolated UGI amyloidosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 11 patients diagnosed with isolated UGI amyloidosis at Chonnam National University Hospital and Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital. None of the patients exhibited systemic involvement or multiple myeloma. Clinical data, including endoscopic features, presenting symptoms, and outcomes such as disease progression and mortality, were analyzed. Results: The cohort included seven males (63.6%) and four females (36.4%), with a median age of 72 (37–82) years. Isolated gastric amyloidosis was identified in four patients, and five patients had disease confined to the duodenum. Two patients (18.2%) presented with gastric or duodenal involvement. Endoscopic findings were heterogeneous, with diffuse yellowish linear lesions being the most frequently observed in four patients (36.4%). Histopathological analysis revealed AA amyloidosis in three patients, whereas five patients exhibited only amorphous deposits without amyloid A, amyloid P, or light chains. Six patients (54.5%) were asymptomatic at diagnosis, whereas gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in two patients (18.2%). Only one patient (9.1%) experienced disease progression that necessitated systemic chemotherapy. The mean follow-up duration was 20 months, and the 3-year mortality rate was 9.1%. Conclusions Isolated UGI amyloidosis is a heterogeneous condition that can be easily misdiagnosed. Familiarity with the characteristic endoscopic features and natural disease course is essential for appropriate management.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires abundant clinical experience and endoscopic skills, and can lead to various complications, some of which may progress to life-threatening conditions. With expanding indications and technological advancements, ERCP is widely utilized, enhancing procedural accessibility. However, without proper quality management, the procedure can pose significant risks. Quality management in ERCP is essential to ensure safe and successful procedures and meet societal demands for improved healthcare competitiveness. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association has developed a Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator reflecting domestic medical environments and realities. Initially, based on a review of foreign ERCP quality indicators and related literatures, key questions were formulated for five preprocedural items, three intra-procedural items, and four post-procedural items. Descriptions and recommendations for each item were selected through peer evaluation. The developed Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator was reviewed by external experts based on the latest evidence and consensus in this fields. This Korean-specific indicator is expected to significantly contribute to improving ERCP quality in Korea, as it is tailored to local needs.

Objective: To evaluate the role of visual and quantitative chest CT parameters in assessing treatment response in patients with severe asthma. Materials and Methods: Korean participants enrolled in a prospective multicenter study, named the Precision Medicine Intervention in Severe Asthma study, from May 2020 to August 2021, underwent baseline and follow-up chest CT scans (inspiration/expiration) 10–12 months apart, before and after biologic treatment. Two radiologists scored bronchiectasis severity and mucus plugging extent. Quantitative parameters were obtained from each CT scan as follows: normal lung area (normal), air trapping without emphysema (AT without emph), air trapping with emphysema (AT with emph), and airway (total branch count, Pi10). Clinical parameters, including pulmonary function tests (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] and FEV1/ forced vital capacity [FVC]), sputum and blood eosinophil count, were assessed at initial and follow-up stages. Changes in CT parameters were correlated with changes in clinical parameters using Pearson or Spearman correlation. Results: Thirty-four participants (female:male, 20:14; median age, 50.5 years) diagnosed with severe asthma from three centers were included. Changes in the bronchiectasis and mucus plugging extent scores were negatively correlated with changes in FEV1 and FEV1/FVC (ρ = from -0.544 to -0.368, all P < 0.05). Changes in quantitative CT parameters were correlated with changes in FEV1 (normal, r = 0.373 [P = 0.030], AT without emph, r = -0.351 [P = 0.042]), FEV1/FVC (normal, r = 0.390 [P = 0.022], AT without emph, r = -0.370 [P = 0.031]). Changes in total branch count were positively correlated with changes in FEV1 (r = 0.349 [P = 0.043]). There was no correlation between changes in Pi10 and the clinical parameters (P > 0.05). Conclusion Visual and quantitative CT parameters of normal, AT without emph, and total branch count may be effective for evaluating treatment response in patients with severe asthma.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires abundant clinical experience and endoscopic skills, and can lead to various complications, some of which may progress to life-threatening conditions. With expanding indications and technological advancements, ERCP is widely utilized, enhancing procedural accessibility. However, without proper quality management, the procedure can pose significant risks. Quality management in ERCP is essential to ensure safe and successful procedures and meet societal demands for improved healthcare competitiveness. To address these concerns, the Korean Society of Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy has developed a Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator reflecting domestic medical environments and realities. Initially, based on a review of foreign ERCP quality indicators and related literatures, key questions were formulated for five pre-procedural items, three intra-procedural items, and four post-procedural items. Descriptions and recommendations for each item were selected through peer evaluation. The developed Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator was reviewed by external experts based on the latest evidence and consensus in this fields. This Korean-specific indicator is expected to significantly contribute to improving ERCP quality in Korea, as it is tailored to local needs.

Purpose: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy by identifying subtle patterns and aiding tumor delineation and lymph node assessment. According to our systematic review focusing on convolutional neural networks, AI-driven tumor staging and the prediction of treatment response facilitate tailored treat­ment strategies for patients with rectal cancer. Methods: This paper summarizes the current landscape of AI in the imaging field of rectal cancer, emphasizing the performance reporting design based on the quality of the dataset, model performance, and external validation. Results: AI-driven tumor segmentation has demonstrated promising results using various convolutional neural network models. AI-based predictions of staging and treatment response have exhibited potential as auxiliary tools for personalized treatment strategies. Some studies have indicated superior performance than conventional models in predicting microsatellite instability and KRAS status, offer­ing noninvasive and cost-effective alternatives for identifying genetic mutations. Conclusion Image-based AI studies for rectal can­cer have shown acceptable diagnostic performance but face several challenges, including limited dataset sizes with standardized data, the need for multicenter studies, and the absence of oncologic relevance and external validation for clinical implantation. Overcoming these pitfalls and hurdles is essential for the feasible integration of AI models in clinical settings for rectal cancer, warranting further research.

Objectives: . The supine sleep position and the rapid eye movement (REM) stage are widely recognized to exacerbate the severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Position-dependent OSA is generally characterized by an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) that is at least twice as high in the supine position compared to other sleep positions. However, this condition can be misdiagnosed if a particular sleep stage—REM or non-REM (NREM)—predominates in a specific position. We explored the impact of the sleep stage on positional dependency in OSA. Methods: . Polysomnographic data were retrospectively analyzed from 111 patients with OSA aged 18 years or older, all of whom had an AHI exceeding five events per hour and slept in both supine and non-supine positions for at least 5% of the total sleep time. The overall ratio of non-supine AHI to supine AHI (NS/S-AHI ratio) was compared between total, REM, and NREM sleep. Additionally, a weighted NS/S-AHI ratio, reflecting the proportion of time spent in each sleep stage, was calculated and compared to the original ratio. Results: . The mean NS/S-AHI ratio was consistent between the entire sleep period and the specific sleep stages. However, the NS/S-AHI ratios for individual patients displayed poor agreement between total sleep and the specific stages. Additionally, the weighted NS/S-AHI ratio displayed poor agreement with the original NS/S-AHI ratio, primarily due to discrepancies in patients with mild to moderate OSA. Conclusion . The weighted NS/S-AHI ratio may help precisely assess positional dependency.