Purpose: Although gastric cancer (GC) exhibits significant genomic heterogeneity, the clinical implications of its immune microenvironment remain poorly understood. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with GC who underwent gastrectomies between 2011 and 2014. The tumors were analyzed for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (CD3), tumor-associated macrophages (CD68 and CD163), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Tumors were classified using the modified The Cancer Genome Atlas scheme, and their clinical characteristics were compared. Results: A total of 567 patients were classified into EBV (6%), MSI-H (10%), chromosomal instability-like (36%), and genomically stable-like (48%) subtypes. EBV tumors exhibited the highest PD-L1 expression (85%) and immune infiltration by CD3+ T cells (86%), CD68+ macrophages (58%), and CD163+ macrophages (40%). High CD68+ macrophage tumors were associated with advanced stages and worse 5-year disease-free survival (83% vs. 95%; P<0.001);however, this association was not independently significant after adjusting for the tumor-nodemetastasis stage. PD-L1 expression did not significantly affect the survival outcomes. Conclusions GC subtypes have distinct immune microenvironments that influence prognosis. Our findings highlight the prognostic and therapeutic potential of immune profiling in GC.

In Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, human understanding is emphasized as one of three necessary characteristics that a physician must have. Inflammation, which is caused by inflammatory inducers (inf-ids), is a fundamental feature of disease at the cellular and molecular levels. Inflammation protects the body, but excessive or prolonged inflammation can be damaging and can cause disease. Humans are repeatedly exposed to external and internal environmental factors that generate inf-ids throughout their lives. External environmental factors include microbial and non-microbial inf-ids, as well as stressors that inevitably arise during social interactions. Internal environmental factors include the adaptive physiological response that is present from birth. Inf-ids may also be produced by the four-step habit loop, which consists of a cue (e.g., stressor), emotions, routine act (adaptive response), and a reward. Immune cells in the circulatory system and in tissues may have positive and negative effects in inflammatory responses. However, low-grade inflammation may be difficult to detect. We propose a model of disease development that integrates external and internal environmental factors from the perspective of human understanding.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

In Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, human understanding is emphasized as one of three necessary characteristics that a physician must have. Inflammation, which is caused by inflammatory inducers (inf-ids), is a fundamental feature of disease at the cellular and molecular levels. Inflammation protects the body, but excessive or prolonged inflammation can be damaging and can cause disease. Humans are repeatedly exposed to external and internal environmental factors that generate inf-ids throughout their lives. External environmental factors include microbial and non-microbial inf-ids, as well as stressors that inevitably arise during social interactions. Internal environmental factors include the adaptive physiological response that is present from birth. Inf-ids may also be produced by the four-step habit loop, which consists of a cue (e.g., stressor), emotions, routine act (adaptive response), and a reward. Immune cells in the circulatory system and in tissues may have positive and negative effects in inflammatory responses. However, low-grade inflammation may be difficult to detect. We propose a model of disease development that integrates external and internal environmental factors from the perspective of human understanding.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.