Background: and Purpose Although blood pressure (BP) elevation is common in acute ischemic stroke, and guidelines recommend reducing systolic BP to <185 mm Hg prior to reperfusion therapy, the safety and efficacy of active BP lowering in the hyperacute phase before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) remain uncertain. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective hospital-based registry that included consecutive patients with anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion who underwent EVT between 2016 and 2024. Patients were categorized into the active BP lowering in the emergency department (ED) group or the absence of BP lowering in the ED group based on whether they received intravenous antihypertensive treatment prior to EVT. The primary outcome was the distribution of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at 3 months. Propensity score matching and multivariable regression analyses were also performed. Results: Of the 492 included patients, 53 (10.8%) received active BP lowering in the ED. After propensity score matching, patients who underwent active BP lowering showed a worse distribution of 3-month mRS scores compared with those who did not receive BP lowering (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.80; p=0.013). The active BP lowering group exhibited greater infarct volume growth (adjusted β coefficient, 33.4; 95% CI, 18.2 to 48.7; p<0.001), whereas the incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage did not differ between groups. Conclusions Active BP lowering in the ED before EVT was associated with worse functional outcomes and increased infarct growth without a corresponding reduction in the occurrence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. These findings highlight the need for caution in initiating antihypertensive therapy before reperfusion and support further investigations to define optimal pre-EVT BP management.

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.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

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.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

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.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Objective: Primary frozen shoulder causes significant pain and progressively restricts shoulder movements. Diagnosis is made clinically based on patient history and physical examination. Management is mainly non-invasive owing to its self-limiting clinical course. However, clinical practice guidelines for frozen shoulder have not yet been developed in Korea. The developed guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of frozen shoulder. Methods: A guideline development committee reviewed the literature from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KMbase). Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework, the committee formulated two backgrounds and 16 key questions to address common clinical concerns. Recommendations were made using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia significantly increase the risk of developing a frozen shoulder. Although frozen shoulder is often self-limiting, some patients may experience long-term functional disabilities. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging should be used as adjunctive tools alongside clinical diagnosis, and rather than as independent diagnostic methods. Noninvasive approaches, such as medications, physical modalities, exercises, electrical stimulation, and manual therapy, may reduce pain and improve shoulder function. Other noninvasive interventions have limited evidence, and their application should be based on clinical judgment. Intra-articular steroid injections are recommended for treatment, and physiotherapy or hydrodilation with steroid injections can also be beneficial. Conclusion These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary frozen shoulder.

Purpose: Axillary surgery is increasingly omitted in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing upfront surgery, as supported by trials such as SOUND and INSEMA. However, in the neoadjuvant setting, the omission of axillary surgery has only been explored in small single-arm studies involving highly selected patients with confirmed breast pathologic complete response (pCR). The NeoNAUTILUS trial aimed to evaluate the oncologic safety of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with a high probability of achieving an axillary pCR (ypN0) following neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), regardless of breast pCR status. Methods NeoNAUTILUS is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted at 12 tertiary centers in Korea. Eligible participants were women with clinical T1–T3, N0, or selected N1 invasive breast cancer, who completed NST and were candidates for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Prior to enrollment, all patients underwent axillary ultrasound after NST completion to exclude suspicious lymph nodes. Patients with clinical N0 disease of any subtype were eligible for inclusion. Patients with clinical N1 disease with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive or triple-negative tumors may be included if their primary tumor demonstrates a > 30% reduction on magnetic resonance imaging after NST. Participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo BCS with or without SLNB, stratified by clinical nodal status and tumor subtype. Patients were randomized and remained blinded until surgery. The primary endpoint is the 5-year invasive disease-free survival. A total of 464 patients are expected to be enrolled over 3 years, with a 5-year follow-up period.Discussion: NeoNAUTILUS is the first randomized trial to assess the omission of axillary surgery after NST based on the predicted nodal response, independent of breast pCR. This study may redefine axillary management in the neoadjuvant setting by identifying patients who can safely avoid SLNB, thereby reducing surgical morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes.

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.