Purpose: The male predominance in the incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is established; however, sex differences in the prognosis of GC remain controversial. As such, this study analyzed the prognosis of patients with GC based on age and sex. Materials and Methods: Data from 14,739 patients diagnosed with GC at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between 2003 and 2023 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, histological types of GC, overall and GC-specific survival rates (age and stage stratification), and associated risk factors were analyzed. Results: Females were significantly younger (p < 0.001) and exhibited more gastric body cancers (p < 0.001) and tumors with diffuse-type or poorly differentiated histology (p < 0.001) than males. Females exhibited an advantage over males in terms of overall survival (p=0.004), but not in GC-specific survival. However, age stratification revealed significant sex differences, that females < 50 years of age exhibited survival disadvantages (p < 0.001); however, this trend was reversed with age, and females > 60 years exhibited survival advantages (p < 0.001) for both overall and GC-specific survival. This may be explained by the lower ratio of diffuse-type GC as females age. Furthermore, in the analysis according to stage, females with stage IV disease exhibited significant survival disadvantages, with significantly younger age and a higher proportion of diffuse-type GC which exhibits aggressive features, resulting in poorer survival than in males. Conclusion Age and stage stratification revealed significant differences in survival between the sexes, which can be helpful for public health strategies.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Background: Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care, because it is the first step through which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit, and return to normal life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider scientific and systematic approaches, as well as the individual experiences of healthcare professionals. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools to identify when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians for liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. These evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved the recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine questions on ventilator liberation about Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) are presented in this document. This guideline presents seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusion We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Background/Aims: Synchronous multiple gastric cancer (SMGC) accounts for approximately 6% to 14% of gastric cancer (GC) cases. This study aimed to identify risk factors for SMGC. Methods: A total of 14,603 patients diagnosed with GC were prospectively enrolled. Data including age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, family history, p53 expression, microsatellite instability, cancer classification, lymph node metastasis, and treatment were collected. Risk factors were analyzed using logistic regression analysis between a single GC and SMGC. Results: The incidence of SMGC was 4.04%, and that of early GC (EGC) and advanced GC (AGC) was 5.43% and 3.11%, respectively. Patients with SMGC were older (65.33 years vs 61.75 years, p<0.001) and more likely to be male. Lymph node metastasis was found in 27% of patients with SMGC and 32% of patients with single GC. Multivariate analysis showed that SMGC was associated with sex (male odds ratio [OR], 1.669; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.223 to 2.278; p=0.001), age (≥65 years OR, 1.532; 95% CI, 1.169 to 2.008; p=0.002), and EGC (OR, 1.929; 95% CI, 1.432 to 2.600; p<0.001). Survival rates were affected by Lauren classification, sex, tumor size, cancer type, distant metastasis, and venous invasion but were not related to the number of GCs. However, the survival rate of AGC with SMGC was very high. Conclusions SMGC had unique characteristics such as male sex, older age, and EGC, and the survival rate of AGC, in which the intestinal type was much more frequent, was very good (Trial registration number: NCT04973631).