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: We aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of gamma knife radiosurgery (GKS) for cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs). Methods: Among the 233 CCM patients who underwent GKS, 79 adult patients (96 lesions) followed for over 10 years were included and analyzed retrospectively. Annual hemorrhage rate (AHR) was analyzed the entire cohort of 233 patients and the subset of 79 enrolled patients by dividing lesions into overall CCM lesions and brainstem lesions. AHR, neurologic outcome, adverse radiation effect (ARE), and changes of lesions in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared before and after GKS. Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for hemorrhage following GKS. Results: Mean follow-up duration of 79 enrolled patients was 14 years (range, 10–23 years).The AHR of all CCMs for entire cohort at each time point was 17.8% (pre-GKS), 5.9% (≤ 2 years post-GKS), 1.8% (≤ 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of all CCM for 79 enrolled patients was 21.4% (pre-GKS), 3.8% (2 years post-GKS), 1.4% (10 years post-GKS), and 2.3% (> 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of brainstem cavernous malformation (CM) for entire cohort at each time point was 22.4% (pre-GKS), 10.1% (≤ 2 years post-GKS), 3.2% (≤ 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of brainstem CM for 79 enrolled patients was 27.2% (pre-GKS), 5.8% (2 years post-GKS), 3.4% (10 years post-GKS), and 3.5% (> 10 years post-GKS). Out of the 79 enrolled patients, 35 presented with focal neurologic deficits at the initial clinical visit. Among these patients, 74.3% showed recovery at the last follow-up. Symptomatic ARE occurred in five (6.4%) patients. No mortality occurred. Most lesions were decreased in size at the last follow-up MRI. Previous hemorrhage history (hazard ratio [HR], 8.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–65.88; P = 0.043), and brainstem location (HR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.26–7.64; P = 0.014) were significant risk factors for hemorrhage event. Conclusion GKS for CCM showed favorable long-term outcomes. GKS should be considered for CCM, especially when it has a previous hemorrhage history and brainstem location.

Background: Treatment for large (> 10 mL) arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) remains highly challenging. This study evaluated long-term effect of time-staged gamma knife radiosurgery (GKS) for large AVMs. Methods: For patients with large AVMs treated by time-staged GKS over 10 years, timestaged GKS was repeated every three years targeting the entire nidus if total obliteration was not achieved. Obliteration rate and post-GKS complications were assessed based on 10 mL volume interval of AVMs. Prognostic factors for these outcomes were evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Results: Ninety-six patients were analyzed. For AVMs in the 10–20 mL subgroup, a dose ≥ 13.5Gy yielded higher obliteration rate in the first GKS. In the 20–30 mL subgroup, a second GKS significantly boosted obliteration. AVMs > 30 mL did not achieve any obliteration with the first GKS. Among 35 (36.4%) cases lost to follow-up, 7 (7.2%) were lost due to GKS complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that each subgroup needed different time for achieving 50% favorable obliteration outcome rate: 3.5, 6.5, and 8.2 years for 10–20 mL, 20–30 mL, and > 30 mL subgroup, respectively. Total obliteration rate calculated by intention-to-treat method: 73%, 51.7%, 35.7%, respectively, 61.5% overall. Post-GKS hemorrhage and chronic encapsulated expanding hematoma (CEEH) occurred in 13.5% and 8.3% of cases, respectively.Two patients died. Dose and volume were significant prognostic factors for obliteration. Initial AVM volume was a significant prognostic factor of post-GKS hemorrhage and CEEH. Conclusion Time-staged GKS for large AVMs less than 30 mL has highly favorable long-term outcome and a tolerable complication rate.

Background: We aimed to analyze the effects of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on the proportion of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in bacteremia, antimicrobial use, and mortality in pediatric patients. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was performed on pediatric inpatients under 19 years old who received systemic antimicrobial treatment from 2001 to 2019. A pediatric infectious disease attending physician started ASP in January 2008. The study period was divided into the pre-intervention (2001–2008) and the post-intervention (2009–2019) periods. The amount of antimicrobial use was defined as days of therapy per 1,000 patientdays, and the differences were compared using delta slope (= changes in slopes) between the two study periods by an interrupted time-series analysis. The proportion of resistant pathogens and the 30-day overall mortality rate were analyzed by the χ2 . Results: The proportion of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia increased from 17% (39 of 235) in the pre-intervention period to 35% (189 of 533) in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). The total amount of antimicrobial use significantly decreased after the introduction of ASP (delta slope value = −16.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], −30.6 to −2.3; P = 0.049). The 30-day overall mortality rate in patients with bacteremia did not increase, being 10% (55 of 564) in the pre-intervention and 10% (94 of 941) in the post-intervention period (P = 0.881). Conclusion The introduction of ASP for pediatric patients reduced the delta slope of the total antimicrobial use without increasing the mortality rate despite an increased incidence of ESBL-producing gram-negative bacteremia.

Xanthogranulomatous osteomyelitis (XO) is a rare chronic inflammatory bone disease characterized by the presence of cholesterol-laden foam macrophages, histiocytes, and plasma cells. We report the case of a 41-year-old man with end-stage renal disease who had undergone deceased donor kidney transplantation 4 years earlier. He presented with a chest wall mass that he had first identified 2 weeks prior to admission. Computed tomography revealed a periosseous heterogeneously enhancing soft tissue mass adjacent to the sternal end of the left clavicle, accompanied by irregular and destructive osteolytic lesions on the left side of the sternal manubrium. A total mass resection, which included partial clavicle and sternum removal, was performed. Pathological examination revealed foamy histiocytes along with numerous lymphoplasmacytic cells, confirming the diagnosis of XO. This case underscores the potential for XO to develop following kidney transplantation.