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/Aims: The recent update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease initiative has added normal growth in children as an intermediate target in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. We aimed to investigate factors associated with reaching midparental height (MPH) in patients diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease in childhood and the adolescent period. Methods: This multicenter retrospective observational study included pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease that had reached adult height. Factors associated with reaching MPH were investigated by logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 166 patients were included in this study (128 Crohn’s disease and 38 ulcerative colitis). Among them, 54.2% (90/166) had reached their MPH. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that height Z-score at diagnosis and MPH Z-score were independently associated with reaching MPH (odds ratio [OR], 8.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.44 to 17.90;p<0.001 and OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.24; p<0.001, respectively). According to the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the optimal cutoff level of "height Z-score at diagnosis minus MPH Z-score" that was associated with reaching MPH was –0.01 with an area under the curve of 0.889 (95% CI [0.835 to 0.944], sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 84.2%, positive predictive value 87.0%, negative predictive value 86.5%, p<0.001). Conclusions Height Z-score at diagnosis and MPH Z-score were the only factors associated with reaching MPH. Efforts should be made to restore growth in pediatric patients who present with a negative “height Z-score at diagnosis minus MPH Z-score.”

Objective: Double microcatheter technique (dMC) can be the alternative to Single microcatheter technique (sMC) for challenging cases, but there is lack of studies comparing dMC to sMC especifically for small ruptured aneurysms. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of dMC to sMC in treating small (≤5 mm) and tiny (≤3 mm) ruptured aneurysms. Methods: This study focused on 91 out of 280 patients who had ruptured aneurysms and underwent either single or double microcatheter coil embolization. These patients were treated with either single or double microcatheter coil embolization. We divided the patients into two groups based on the procedural method and evaluated clinical features and outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted specifically for tiny aneurysms, comparing the two methods, and within the dMC group, we also examined whether the aneurysm was tiny or not. In addition, univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of coil packing density. Results: The mean values for most outcome measures in the dMC group were higher than those in the sMC group, but these differences did not reach statistical significance (coil packing density, 45.739% vs. 39.943%; procedural complication, 4.17% vs. 11.94%; recanalization, 8.3% vs. 10.45%; discharge discharge modified Rankin Scale (mRS), 1.83 vs. 1.97). The comparison between tiny aneurysms and other sizes within the dMC group did not reveal any significant differences in terms of worse outcomes or increased risk. The only factor that significantly influenced coil packing density in the univariate logistic regression analysis was the size of the aneurysm (OR 0.309, 95% CI 0.169–0.566, p=0.000). Conclusions The dMC proved to be a safe and viable alternative to the sMC for treating small ruptured aneurysms in challenging cases.

Purpose: This study evaluated whether combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) as first-line chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Elderly (≥ 70 years) chemo-naïve patients with MRGC were allocated to receive either combination therapy (group A: 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/oxaliplatin, capecitabine/cisplatin, or S-1/cisplatin) or monotherapy (group B: 5-FU, capecitabine, or S-1). In group A, starting doses were 80% of standard doses, and they could be escalated to 100% at the discretion of the investigator. Primary endpoint was to confirm superior overall survival (OS) of combination therapy vs. monotherapy. Results: After 111 of the planned 238 patients were randomized, enrollment was terminated due to poor accrual. In the full-analysis population (group A [n=53] and group B [n=51]), median OS of combination therapy vs. monotherapy was 11.5 vs. 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.30; p=0.231). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 vs. 3.7 months (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83; p=0.005). In subgroup analyses, patients aged 70-74 years tended to have superior OS with combination therapy (15.9 vs. 7.2 months, p=0.056). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred more frequently in group A vs. group B. However, among severe TRAEs (≥ grade 3), there were no TRAEs with a frequency difference of > 5%. Conclusion Combination therapy was associated with numerically improved OS, although statistically insignificant, and a significant PFS benefit compared with monotherapy. Although combination therapy showed more frequent TRAEs, there was no difference in the frequency of severe TRAEs.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the use of the respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) index, ROX-heart rate (ROX-HR) index, and saturation of percutaneous oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (SF ratio) to predict weaning from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with respiratory distress in a pediatric intensive care unit. Methods: A total of 107 children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit were enrolled in the study between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. Data on clinical and personal information, ROX index, ROX-HR index, and SF ratio were collected from nursing records. The data were analyzed using an independent t-test, χ2 test, Mann–Whitney U test, and area under the curve (AUC). Results: Seventy-five (70.1%) patients were successfully weaned from HFNC, while 32 (29.9%) failed. Considering specificity and sensitivity, the optimal cut off points for predicting treatment success and failure of HFNC oxygen therapy were 6.88 and 10.16 (ROX index), 5.23 and 8.61 (ROX-HR index), and 198.75 and 353.15 (SF ratio), respectively. The measurement of time showed that the most significant AUC was 1 hour before HFNC interruption. Conclusion The ROX index, ROX-HR index, and SF ratio appear to be promising tools for the early prediction of treatment success or failure in patients initiated on HFNC for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Nurses caring for critically ill pediatric patients should closely observe and periodically check their breathing patterns. It is important to continuously monitor three indexes to ensure that ventilation assistance therapy is started at the right time.

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: We aimed to investigate factors that correlate with fecal calprotectin (FC) levels in children and adolescents with colorectal polyps. Methods: Pediatric patients aged <19 years who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy for a juvenile polyps (JPs) and FC tests were simultaneously conducted in a multicenter, retrospective study. Baseline demographics, colonoscopic and histological findings, and laboratory tests, including FC levels, were investigated. Correlations between the factors were investigated, and linear regression analysis revealed factors that correlated with FC levels. FC levels measured after polypectomies were investigated and the FC levels pre- and post-polypectomies were compared. Results: A total of 33 patients were included in the study. According to Pearson correlation analysis, the polyp size was the only factor that showed a statistically significant correlation with FC levels (r=0.75, p<0.001). Furthermore, according to the multivariate linear regression analysis, polyp size was the only factor that showed a statistically significant correlation with FC levels (adjusted R2=0.5718, β=73.62, p<0.001). The median FC level was 400 mg/ kg (interquartile range [IQR], 141.6–1,000 mg/kg), and the median polyp size was 14 mm (IQR, 9–20 mm). Nineteen patients underwent post-polypectomy FC tests. FC levels showed a significant decrease after polypectomy from a median of 445.2 mg/kg (IQR, 225–1,000) to 26.5 mg/kg (11.5–51) ( p<0.001). Conclusion FC levels significantly correlated with polyp size in children and adolescents with JPs.