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: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.

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.”

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases.This position paper focuses on the clinical management of valvular heart diseases with reference to the guidelines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee tried to reflect the recently published results on the topic of valvular heart diseases and Korean data by a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In part I of this article, we will review and discuss the current position of aortic valve disease in Korea.

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases.This position paper focuses on the diagnosis and management of valvular heart diseases with referring to the guide‑ lines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee sought to reflect national data on the topic of valvular heart diseases published to date through a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In the part II of this article, we intend to pre‑ sent recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of mitral valve disease and tricuspid valve disease.

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.