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.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Background: Primary cicatricial alopecia (PCA) is a rare disease that causes irreversible destruction of hair follicles and affects the quality of life (QOL). Objective: We aimed to investigate the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, and real-world diagnosis and treatment status of patients with PCA. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was administered to patients with PCA and their dermatologists. Patients aged between 19 and 75 years who visited one of 27 dermatology departments between September 2021 and September 2022 were included. Results: In total, 274 patients were included. The male-to-female ratio was 1:1.47, with a mean age of 45.7 years. Patients with neutrophilic and mixed PCA were predominantly male and younger than those with lymphocytic PCA. Among patients with lymphocytic PCA, lichen planopilaris was the most common type, and among those with neutrophilic PCA, folliculitis decalvans was the most common type. Among the total patients, 28.8% were previously diagnosed with PCA, 47.0% were diagnosed with PCA at least 6 months after their first hospital visit, 20.0% received early treatment within 3 months of disease onset, and 54.4% received steady treatment. More than half of the patients had a moderate to severe impairment in QOL. Topical/intralesional steroid injections were the most common treatment. Systemic immunosuppressants were frequently prescribed to patients with lymphocytic PCA, and antibiotics were mostly prescribed to patients with neutrophilic PCA. Conclusion This study provides information on the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, diagnosis, and treatment status of Korean patients with PCA. This can help dermatologists educate patients with PCA to understand the necessity for early diagnosis and steady treatment.

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.

Purpose: The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy following curative-intent surgery in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients who had received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is unclear. This study aimed to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in this patient population. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 218 patients with localized non-metastatic PDAC who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and underwent curative-intent surgery (R0 or R1) between January 2017 and December 2020. The association of adjuvant chemotherapy with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in overall patients and in the propensity score matched (PSM) cohort. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the pathology-proven lymph node status. Results: Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 149 patients (68.3%). In the overall cohort, the adjuvant chemotherapy group had significantly improved DFS and OS compared to the observation group (DFS: median, 13.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.0 to 19.1] vs. 8.2 months [95% CI, 6.5 to 12.0]; p < 0.001; and OS: median, 38.0 months [95% CI, 32.2 to not assessable] vs. 25.7 months [95% CI, 18.3 to not assessable]; p=0.005). In the PSM cohort of 57 matched pairs of patients, DFS and OS were better in the adjuvant chemotherapy group than in the observation group (p < 0.001 and p=0.038, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy was a significant favorable prognostic factor (vs. observation; DFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.71; p < 0.001]; OS: HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.71; p < 0.001]). Conclusion Among PDAC patients who underwent surgery following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, adjuvant chemotherapy may be associated with improved survival. Randomized studies should be conducted to validate this finding.

Background: Enavogliflozin is a novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor currently under clinical development. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of enavogliflozin as an add-on to metformin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) against dapagliflozin. Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study, 200 patients were randomized to receive enavogliflozin 0.3 mg/day (n=101) or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n=99) in addition to ongoing metformin therapy for 24 weeks. The primary objective of the study was to prove the non-inferiority of enavogliflozin to dapagliflozin in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change at week 24 (non-inferiority margin of 0.35%) (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04634500). Results: Adjusted mean change of HbA1c at week 24 was –0.80% with enavogliflozin and –0.75% with dapagliflozin (difference, –0.04%; 95% confidence interval, –0.21% to 0.12%). Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% were 61% and 62%, respectively. Adjusted mean change of fasting plasma glucose at week 24 was –32.53 and –29.14 mg/dL. An increase in urine glucose-creatinine ratio (60.48 vs. 44.94, P<0.0001) and decrease in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (–1.85 vs. –1.31, P=0.0041) were significantly greater with enavogliflozin than dapagliflozin at week 24. Beneficial effects of enavogliflozin on body weight (–3.77 kg vs. –3.58 kg) and blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, –5.93/–5.41 mm Hg vs. –6.57/–4.26 mm Hg) were comparable with those of dapagliflozin, and both drugs were safe and well-tolerated. Conclusion Enavogliflozin added to metformin significantly improved glycemic control in patients with T2DM and was non-inferior to dapagliflozin 10 mg, suggesting enavogliflozin as a viable treatment option for patients with inadequate glycemic control on metformin alone.

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.