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: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Objectives: Genetic factors are a major cause of osteoporosis. The present study evaluated the association of the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype with bone mineral density (BMD) and its response to menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) in postmenopausal Korean women. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 172 postmenopausal women with no endocrine diseases, medications, or lifestyles that would affect bone metabolism and who were continuously treated with MHT for at least 2 years. BMDs were measured at baseline and periodically. Results: Linear regression analysis demonstrated similar baseline BMDs at the lumbar spine, but significantly lower at the femur neck and total hip in the ApoE ε4 carrier than in the noncarrier group, after controlling for age, body mass index, and history of MHT usage. Overall, the Wilcoxon signed rank test demonstrated that MHT increased the BMD percentage change at all three regions, and the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) demonstrated significant time trends at the lumbar spine and femur neck. ApoE ε4 noncarriers exhibited a significant time trend in BMD changes at the femur neck, whereas ε4 carriers exhibited a time trend at the lumbar spine. However, BMD changes at each time point were comparable at all regions between the groups. Notably, GEE adjusted for baseline characteristics and BMD revealed a significant interaction effect of time and ApoE ε4 allele in BMD changes at the femur neck. Conclusions Postmenopausal Korean women carrying the ApoE ε4 allele demonstrated a lower hip BMD compared with ε4 noncarriers. Furthermore, the ε4 allele may modulate hip BMD responses to MHT.

The occurrence of an abdominal wall hematoma caused by abdominal paracentesis in patients with liver cirrhosis is rare. This paper presents a case of an abdominal wall hematoma caused by abdominal paracentesis in a 67-year-old woman with liver cirrhosis with a review of the relevant literature. Two days prior, the patient underwent abdominal paracentesis for symptom relief for refractory ascites at a local clinic. Upon admission, a physical examination revealed purpuric patches with swelling and mild tenderness in the left lower quadrant of the abdominal wall. Abdominal computed tomography revealed advanced liver cirrhosis with splenomegaly, tortuous dilatation of the para-umbilical vein, a large volume of ascites, and a large acute hematoma at the left lower quadrant of the abdominal wall. An external iliac artery angiogram showed the extravasation of contrast media from the left deep circumflex iliac artery. Embolization of the target arterial branches using N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate was then performed, and the bleeding was stopped. The final diagnosis was an abdominal wall hematoma from the left deep circumflex iliac artery after abdominal paracentesis in a patient with liver cirrhosis.

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.

As the aging population increases, the number of patients with osteoporosis is gradually rising. Osteoporosis is a metabolic bone disease characterized by low bone mass and the microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, resulting in reduced bone strength and an increased risk of low-energy or fragility fractures. Thus, the use of anti-resorptive agents, such as bisphosphonates (BPs), to prevent osteoporotic fractures is growing annually. BPs are effective in reducing hip and other fractures. However, the longer a patient takes BPs, the higher the risk of an atypical femoral fracture (AFF). The exact mechanism by which long-term BP use affects the development of AFFs has not yet been clarified. However, several theories have been suggested to explain the pathogenesis of AFFs, such as suppressed bone remodeling, impaired bone healing, altered bone quality, and femoral morphology. The management of AFFs requires both medical and surgical approaches. BPs therapy should be discontinued immediately, and calcium and vitamin D levels should be evaluated and supplemented if insufficient. Teriparatide can be used for AFFs. Intramedullary nailing is the primary treatment for complete AFFs, and prophylactic femoral nailing is recommended if signs of an impending fracture are detected.

In children and adolescents, dental age estimation is performed with the development of the teeth. Various statistical analysis methods have been used to determine the relationship between age and dental maturity and develop an accurate method of age calculation. This study attempted to apply a neural network model for the statistical analysis of dental age estimation in children and evaluated its applicability. This study used 1196 panoramic radiographs of patients aged 3–16 years, and 996 and 200 were randomly classified into training and test sets, respectively. The dental maturity of the mandibular left teeth was evaluated using Demirjian's method, the neural network model using the backpropagation algorithm was derived using training sets, and the errors were evaluated using 100 radiographs of each male and female as test sets. In addition, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted on the same training set, and the error was calculated by applying it to the test set and comparing it with the error of the neural network model. In the neural network model, the mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) were 0.589 and 0.783 in male subjects and 0.529 and 0.760 in female subjects, respectively. In the multiple linear regression model, the MAE and RMSE were 0.600 and 0.748 in male subjects and 0.566 and 0.789 in female subjects, respectively. When applying the neural network model to the statistical analysis of the dental developmental stage, the results were as accurate as those of conventional statistical analysis methods. This study’s approach is expected to be useful for estimating the ages of children.