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.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Clinically, evaluation and procedures using ultrasound are expanding in the field of neuromusculoskeletal disorders, and ultrasound is also actively used for hip and thigh pain. This review delineates the normal ultrasound findings of lateral and posterior aspects of the hip joint and thigh. Furthermore, it covers ultrasound findings of commonly occurring soft tissue diseases and nerve entrapment, along with ultrasound-guided injections.

Suppressors of cytokine signaling (SOCS) have emerged as potential regulators of macrophage function. We have investigated mechanisms of SOCS3 action on type 2 macrophage (M2) differentiation induced by glucocorticoid using human monocytic cell lines and mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages. Treatment of THP1 monocytic cells with dexamethasone (Dex) induced ROS generation and M2 polarization promoting IL-10 and TGF-β production, while suppressing IL-1β, TNF-α and IL-6 production. SOCS3 over-expression reduced, whereas SOCS3 ablation enhanced IL-10 and TGF-β induction with concomitant regulation of ROS. As a mediator of M2 differentiation, glucocorticoidinduced leucine zipper (GILZ) was down-regulated by SOCS3 and up-regulated by shSOCS3. The induction of GILZ and IL-10 by Dex was dependent on ROS and p38 MAPK activity. Importantly, GILZ ablation led to the inhibition of ROS generation and anti-inflammatory cytokine induction by Dex. Moreover, GILZ knock-down negated the up-regulation of IL-10 production induced by shSOCS3 transduction. Our data suggest that SOCS3 targets ROS- and p38-dependent GILZ expression to suppress Dex-induced M2 polarization.

Purpose: To assess conventional MRI features associated with residual soft-tissue sarcomas following unplanned excision (UPE), and to compare the diagnostic performance of conventional MRI only with that of MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for residual tumors after UPE. Materials and Methods: We included 103 consecutive patients who had received UPE of a soft-tissue sarcoma with wide excision of the tumor bed between December 2013 and December 2019 and who also underwent conventional MRI and DWI in this retrospective study. The presence of focal enhancement, soft-tissue edema, fascial enhancement, fluid collections, and hematoma on MRI including DWI was reviewed by two musculoskeletal radiologists. We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify the most significant MRI features. We compared the diagnostic performances of conventional MRI and added DWI using the McNemar test. Results: Residual tumors were present in 69 (66.9%) of 103 patients, whereas no tumors were found in 34 (33.1%) patients. CART showed focal enhancement to be the most significant predictor of residual tumors and correctly predicted residual tumors in 81.6% (84/103) and 78.6% (81/103) of patients for Reader 1 and Reader 2, respectively. Compared with conventional MRI only, the addition of DWI for Reader 1 improved specificity (32.8% vs. 56%, 33.3% vs. 63.0%, P < 0.05), decreased sensitivity (96.8% vs. 84.1%, 98.7% vs. 76.7%, P < 0.05), without a difference in diagnostic accuracy (76.7% vs. 74.8%, 72.9% vs. 71.4%) in total and in subgroups. For Reader 2, diagnostic performance was not significantly different between the sets of MRI (P > 0.05). Conclusion After UPE of a soft-tissue sarcoma, the presence or absence of a focal enhancement was the most significant MRI finding predicting residual tumors. MRI provided good diagnostic accuracy for detecting residual tumors, and the addition of DWI to conventional MRI may increase specificity.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate long-term post-discontinuation outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been treated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNF-αi) which was then discontinued. Methods: Sixty Korean patients with RA who participated in a 5-year GO-BEFORE and GO-FORWARD extension trials were included in this retrospective study. Golimumab was deliberately discontinued after the extension study (baseline). Patients were then followed by their rheumatologists. We reviewed their medical records for 2 years (max 28 months) following golimumab discontinuation. Patients were divided into a maintained benefit (MB) group and a loss-of-benefit (LB) group based on treatment pattern after golimumab discontinuation. The LB group included patients whose conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s) were stepped-up or added/switched (SC) and those who restarted biologic therapy (RB). Results: The mean age of patients at baseline was 56.5 years and 55 (91.7%) were females. At the end of follow-up, 23 (38.3%) patients remained in the MB group. In the LB group, 75.7% and 24.3% were assigned into SC and RB subgroups, respectively. Fifty percent of patients lost MB after 23.3 months. Demographics and clinical variables at baseline were comparable between MB and LB groups except for age, C-reactive protein level, and corticosteroid use. Restarting biologic therapy was associated with swollen joint count (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 3.55) and disease duration (adjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.23) at baseline. Conclusions Treatment strategies after discontinuing TNF-αi are needed to better maintain disease control and quality of life of patients with RA.

Objective: To investigate the clinical impact of a quality improvement program including dedicated emergency radiology personnel (QIP-DERP) on the management of emergency surgical patients in the emergency department (ED). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study identified all adult patients (n = 3667) who underwent preoperative body CT, for which written radiology reports were generated, and who subsequently underwent non-elective surgery between 2007 and 2018 in the ED of a single urban academic tertiary medical institution. The study cohort was divided into periods before and after the initiation of QIP-DERP. We matched the control group patients (i.e., before QIP-DERP) to the QIP-DERP group patients using propensity score (PS), with a 1:2 matching ratio for the main analysis and a 1:1 ratio for sub-analyses separately for daytime (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays) and after-hours. The primary outcome was timing of emergency surgery (TES), which was defined as the time from ED arrival to surgical intervention. The secondary outcomes included ED length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate. Results: According to the PS-matched analysis, compared with the control group, QIP-DERP significantly decreased the median TES from 16.7 hours (interquartile range, 9.4–27.5 hours) to 11.6 hours (6.6–21.9 hours) (p < 0.001) and the ICU admission rate from 33.3% (205/616) to 23.9% (295/1232) (p < 0.001). During after-hours, the QIP-DERP significantly reduced median TES from 19.9 hours (12.5–30.1 hours) to 9.6 hours (5.7–19.1 hours) (p < 0.001), median ED LOS from 9.1 hours (5.6–16.5 hours) to 6.7 hours (4.9–11.3 hours) (p < 0.001), and ICU admission rate from 35.5% (108/304) to 22.0% (67/304) (p < 0.001). Conclusion QIP-DERP implementation improved the quality of emergency surgical management in the ED by reducing TES, ED LOS, and ICU admission rate, particularly during after-hours.