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.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Objective: Scalp lacerations are mostly treated with primary closure using staplers in the emergency department. This study examined the complications of patients who underwent scalp laceration closure with staplers over the past 5 years to identify the risk factors and indications for stapler closure. Methods: Patients who visited the emergency department with scalp lacerations registered in the electrical medical records of the author’s hospital (2018-2022) were included. All included cases were categorized into two groups: patients without revision (group A) and with wound revision (group B). The general characteristics and the factors associated with complications (e.g., prior medical history and the length and location of wounds) were investigated. Results: Among 794 emergency department and outpatient clinic visits, 751 and 42 patients were in groups A and B, respectively. The odds for revision were affected by wound length (odds ratio [OR]=3.996; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.905-8.383). The odds for revision were higher in a drunken state (OR=1.431; 95% CI, 0.686-2.984) and loss of consciousness (OR=1.629; 95% CI, 0.750-3.539). The prior medical history and wound location did not show a significant relationship with an increased risk of revision. Conclusion Scalp lacerations of 5 cm or more should be sutured using sutures rather than staplers, and additional research is needed on other factors that may cause complications.

Objective: Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype is associated with risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the association ofAPOE ε4 allele with longitudinal medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) has been controversial. This study aims to evaluate the effect of APOE genotype on longitudinal MTA over a 2-year period in cognitively impaired patients with amyloid deposition. Methods: This retrospective longitudinal study included 65 cognitively impaired subjects with amyloid deposition (subjective memory impairment, mild cognitive impairment, and mild AD). Participants were divided into carriers (n=27) and non-carriers (n=38) of the ε4 allele. The main outcome is longitudinal reduction of medial temporal lobe (hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and parahippocampal gyrus) over 2 years. Analysis of covariance was conducted to compare the differences in longitudinal MTA between groups, controlling for covariates. Results: At baseline, hippocampal volume was 4.6% smaller (6.38±1.13 vs. 6.69±0.83, p=0.026) and entorhinal thickness was6.4% thinner (3.51±0.57 vs. 3.75±0.52, p=0.033) in APOE ε4 carriers than non-carriers. Furthermore, APOE ε4 carriers had significantly 72% greater longitudinal hippocampal atrophy compared to non-carriers (-0.43±0.30 vs. -0.25±0.31, p=0.041). Conclusion Our findings of baseline or longitudinal MTA in APOE ε4 carriers suggest that APOE ε4 genotype may contrib-ute to underlying pathophysiology of medial temporal lobe in AD.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate the association of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) e4 genotype with cognition, brain volume, glucose metabolism, and amyloid deposition in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). Methods: This is cross-sectional study of 69 subjects with AD. All subjects were divided into carriers and non-carriers of the e4 allele. Forty APOE e4 carriers and 29 APOE e4 non-carriers underwent neuropsychological, structural magnetic resonance imaging, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scans (PET) and [18F]florbetaben amyloid PET. Analysis of co-variance was conducted to compare the differences on cognition, brain volume, glucose metabolism and amyloid deposition between APOE e4 carriers and non-carriers after controlling demographics. Results: APOE e4 carriers had 50% lower scores of Seoul Verbal Learning Test (delayed recall) compared to non-carriers (0.88±1.65 vs. 1.76±1.75, p<0.05). However, APOE e4 carriers performed better on other cognitive tests than non-carriers (Korean version of Boston Naming Test [11.04±2.55 vs. 9.66±2.82, p<0.05], Rey Complex Figure Test [25.73±8.56 vs. 20.15±10.82, p<0.05], and Stroop test [color response] [48.28±26.33 vs. 31.56±27.03, p<0.05]). APOE e4 carriers had slightly smaller hippocampal volume than non-carriers (3.09±0.38 vs. 3.32±0.38, p<0.05), but greater total brain cortical thickness (1.45±1.55 vs. 1.37±1.24, p<0.05). Amyloid deposition did not differ significantly between APOE e4 carriers and non-carriers, and no signifi-cant difference in glucose metabolism was found between groups. Conclusion We found that APOE e4 genotype is associated with cognition, brain volume in AD, suggesting that APOE e4 genotype could play an important role in the underlying pathogenesis of AD.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.