Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a progressive and chronic musculoskeletal condition that continues to be the leading cause of disability worldwide. Conventional treatment approaches for the management of KOA largely focus on symptom alleviation rather than halting or reversing disease progression. However, recent advancements have highlighted the integrated interplay of mechanical stress, inflammation, cellular senescence, and chondrocyte dysfunction in the progression of KOA, in turn prompting new therapeutic strategies. Therefore, emerging interventions such as regenerative medicine, gene therapy, senolytic, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMODs), and biologics have broadened the therapeutic options. Additionally, natural compounds demonstrated potential in KOA treatment with promising chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects.Moreover, digital technologies and clinical and molecular phenotyping enhanced early diagnosis, monitoring, and personalized management of the disease. Therefore, the current narrative review focuses on the molecular insights, clinical outcomes and prospects for the rapidly evolving landscape of current and emerging treatment approaches for the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Background/Aims: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. We investigated genomic determinants of clinical benefit from gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in advanced BTC. Methods: Clinical and genomic data using TruSight Oncology 500 were analyzed from patients treated with GAP (N=198) or GC (N=89) as first-line therapy. Results: With a median follow-up of 33.0 months, GAP modestly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.764; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.591–0.989) without significant overall survival (OS) difference compared to GC. Genomic profiling revealed frequent alterations in TP53 (35.2%), KRAS (16.4%), SMAD4 (10.5%), and TNFRSF14 (10.5%), involving RTK/RAS (44.3%), TP53 (41.8%), and PI3K (20.2%) pathways. Single-gene mutations did not predict treatment benefit. However, pathway-level analysis identified PI3K pathway activation as significantly associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.148; 95% CI 1.478–3.124) and OS (HR 2.096; 95% CI 1.413–3.109) in patients receiving GAP, an effect not observed with GC. Importantly, GAP conferred clinical benefit only in patients without PI3K pathway activation, while no survival advantage was seen in those with such alterations (Pinteraction=0.023 for PFS, Pinteraction=0.003 for OS). Similar results were obtained in the independent validation cohort treated with GAP (N=103) or GC (N=64) for BTC. Conclusions Genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing identified PI3K pathway activation as key molecular determinant that differentiates patient outcomes between GAP and GC treatments in advanced BTC.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

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.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Background/Aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods. Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001). Conclusions After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

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.