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: Processing methods for hematopoietic stem cells vary significantly across institutions, with no standardized guidelines currently in place. This lack of standardization presents challenges in ensuring consistent quality and out‑ comes of stem cell transplantation procedures. This study investigated current practices in peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) processing and storage among transplant centers in Korea to establish a foundation for the development of standardized guidelines. Methods: A comprehensive questionnaire was distributed to 46 hematopoietic stem cell transplantation centers in Korea, examining five key areas: PBSC collection procedures, use of cryopreservatives, cryopreservation protocols, quality control measures, and thawing protocols. Results: Analysis of the 29 responses revealed significant variations across different stages of PBSC handling. All centers used controlled-rate freezers, and 92.9% stored cells at temperatures below -150 ◦ C . However, other prac‑ tices varied widely. Additional post-collection processing was performed by 53.8% of respondents. DMSO concen‑ trations ranged from 5 to 15%, with diverse combinations of supplementary media. Notably, 28.6% of patients did not undergo post-thaw quality assessment tests. Conclusion This study identified significant heterogeneity in PBSC processing practices across Korean transplant centers. These findings underscore the need for evidence-based standardized guidelines to ensure consistent product quality and improve transplantation outcomes.

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.

Purpose: Renal tumors account for approximately 7% of all childhood cancers. These include Wilms tumor (WT), clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), malignant rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (MRTK), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) and other rare tumors. We investigated the epidemiology of pediatric renal tumors in Korea. Materials and Methods: From January 2001 to December 2015, data of pediatric patients (0–18 years) newly-diagnosed with renal tumors at 26 hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among 439 patients (male, 240), the most common tumor was WT (n=342, 77.9%), followed by RCC (n=36, 8.2%), CCSK (n=24, 5.5%), MRTK (n=16, 3.6%), CMN (n=12, 2.7%), and others (n=9, 2.1%). Median age at diagnosis was 27.1 months (range 0-225.5) and median follow-up duration was 88.5 months (range 0-211.6). Overall, 32 patients died, of whom 17, 11, 1, and 3 died of relapse, progressive disease, second malignant neoplasm, and treatment-related mortality. Five-year overall survival and event free survival were 97.2% and 84.8% in WT, 90.6% and 82.1% in RCC, 81.1% and 63.6% in CCSK, 60.3% and 56.2% in MRTK, and 100% and 91.7% in CMN, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion The pediatric renal tumor types in Korea are similar to those previously reported in other countries. WT accounted for a large proportion and survival was excellent. Non-Wilms renal tumors included a variety of tumors and showed inferior outcome, especially MRTK. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the treatment and analyze the genetic characteristics of pediatric renal tumors in Korea.

Objective: To investigate the long-term outcomes of percutaneous treatment of benign biliary strictures using temporary placement of a retrievable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) covered stent. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of 148 patients (84 male and 64 female; age range, 11–92 years) who underwent percutaneous transhepatic placement and removal of a retrievable PTFE-covered stent for the treatment of benign biliary strictures between March 2007 and August 2019 through long-term follow-up. Ninety-two patients had treatment-naïve strictures and 56 had recurrent/refractory strictures. Results: Stent placement was technically successful in all 148 patients. The mean indwelling period of the stent was 2.4 months (median period, 2.3 months; range, 0.2–7.7 months). Stent migration, either early or late, occurred in 28 (18.9%) patients. Clinical success, defined as resolution of stricture after completing stent placement and removal, was achieved in 94.2% (131 of 139 patients). The overall complication rate was 15.5% (23 of 148 patients). During the mean follow-up of 60.2 months (median period, 52.7 months; range, 1.6–146.1 months), 37 patients had a recurrence of clinically significant strictures at 0.5–124.5 months after removal of biliary stent and catheter (median, 16.1 months). The primary patency rates at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years after removal of biliary stent and catheter were 88.2%, 70.0%, 66.2%, 60.5%, and 54.5%, respectively. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, sex, age, underlying disease, relation to surgery, stricture type, biliary stones, history of previous treatment, and stricture site were not significantly associated with the primary patency. Conclusion Long-term outcomes suggest that percutaneous treatment of benign biliary strictures using temporary placement of retrievable PTFE-covered stents may be a clinically effective method.

Background/Aims: Little is known about the clinical course of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to investigate the clinical course of HBV infection and IBD and to analyze liver dysfunction risks in patients undergoing anti-TNF-α therapy. Methods: This retrospective multinational study involved multiple centers in Korea, China, Tai-wan, and Japan. We enrolled IBD patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection, who received anti-TNF-α therapy. The patients’ medical records were reviewed, and data were collected using a web-based case report form. Results: Overall, 191 patients (77 ulcerative colitis and 114 Crohn’s disease) were included, 28.3% of whom received prophylactic antivirals. During a median follow-up duration of 32.4 months, 7.3% of patients experienced liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation. Among patients with chronic HBV infection, the proportion experiencing liver dysfunction was significantly higher in the non-prophylaxis group (26% vs 8%, p=0.02). Liver dysfunction occurred in one patient with resolved HBV infection. Antiviral prophylaxis was independently associated with an 84% reduction in liver dysfunction risk in patients with chronic HBV infection (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.66; p=0.01). The clinical course of IBD was not associated with liver dysfunction or the administration of antiviral prophylaxis. Conclusions Liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation can occur in HBV-infected IBD patients treated with anti-TNF-α agents. Careful monitoring is needed in these patients, and antivirals should be administered, especially to those with chronic HBV infection.

Background/Aims: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is prevalent in East Asia. However, information on CAM in East Asian patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is scarce. We aimed to profile the prevalence and pattern of CAM use among East Asian IBD patients and to identify factors associated with CAM use. We also compared physicians’ perspectives on CAM. Methods: Patients with IBD from China, Japan, and South Korea were invited to complete questionnaires on CAM use. Patient demographic and clinical data were collected. Logistic regression analysis was applied for predictors of CAM use. Physicians from each country were asked about their opinion on CAM services or products. Results: Overall, 905 patients with IBD participated in this study (China 232, Japan 255, and South Korea 418). Approximately 8.6% of patients with IBD used CAM services for their disease, while 29.7% of patients sought at least 1 kind of CAM product. Current active disease and Chinese or South Korean nationality over Japanese were independent predictors of CAM use. Chinese doctors were more likely to consider CAM helpful for patients with IBD than were Japanese and South Korean doctors. Conclusions In 8.6% and 29.7% of East Asian patients with IBD used CAM services and products, respectively, which does not differ from the prevalence in their Western counterparts. There is a significant gap regarding CAM usage among different Asian countries, not only from the patients’ perspective but also from the physicians’ point of view.