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 and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Primary cholangiocarcinoma is a rare bile duct epithelial neoplasm that can present with atypical clinical manifestations, complicating its diagnosis. A 62-year-old male showed symptoms suggestive of a complicated hepatic cyst that was later identified as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The patient presented with abdominal discomfort without fever. Imaging revealed a large cystic lesion in the liver. Despite the initial treatment for a presumed abscess, a biopsy confirmed cholangiocarcinoma. This case highlights the diagnostic challenge of distinguishing between benign complicated hepatic cysts and malignancies, particularly when typical markers of infection are absent. Early biopsy and vigilant assessments are crucial in such presentations to avoid a delayed diagnosis and initiate appropriate treatment.

Hepatic tuberculosis, typically associated with miliary tuberculosis, can occasionally present as localized liver lesions. This case report describes a 77-year-old male presenting with persistent abdominal pain and fever, following an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for bile duct sludge removal. Subsequent computed tomography revealed focal liver lesions. Despite initial treatment with antibiotics for a suspected inflammatory liver abscess, his condition did not improve. A liver biopsy was performed, revealing caseous granulomas, and the tuberculosis polymerase chain reaction result was positive. The patient was diagnosed with primary hepatic tuberculosis, which later disseminated. Oral anti-tuberculosis therapy was initiated and is currently being closely monitored. This case emphasizes the importance of considering hepatic tuberculosis in the differential diagnosis of liver lesions, particularly in cases involving cholestatic liver function tests, and persistent symptoms unresponsive to conventional antibiotics.

Primary cholangiocarcinoma is a rare bile duct epithelial neoplasm that can present with atypical clinical manifestations, complicating its diagnosis. A 62-year-old male showed symptoms suggestive of a complicated hepatic cyst that was later identified as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The patient presented with abdominal discomfort without fever. Imaging revealed a large cystic lesion in the liver. Despite the initial treatment for a presumed abscess, a biopsy confirmed cholangiocarcinoma. This case highlights the diagnostic challenge of distinguishing between benign complicated hepatic cysts and malignancies, particularly when typical markers of infection are absent. Early biopsy and vigilant assessments are crucial in such presentations to avoid a delayed diagnosis and initiate appropriate treatment.

Hepatic tuberculosis, typically associated with miliary tuberculosis, can occasionally present as localized liver lesions. This case report describes a 77-year-old male presenting with persistent abdominal pain and fever, following an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for bile duct sludge removal. Subsequent computed tomography revealed focal liver lesions. Despite initial treatment with antibiotics for a suspected inflammatory liver abscess, his condition did not improve. A liver biopsy was performed, revealing caseous granulomas, and the tuberculosis polymerase chain reaction result was positive. The patient was diagnosed with primary hepatic tuberculosis, which later disseminated. Oral anti-tuberculosis therapy was initiated and is currently being closely monitored. This case emphasizes the importance of considering hepatic tuberculosis in the differential diagnosis of liver lesions, particularly in cases involving cholestatic liver function tests, and persistent symptoms unresponsive to conventional antibiotics.

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.