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.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of vertebral venous congestion (VVC) in patients with chemoport insertion, evaluate the imaging characteristics of nodular VVC, and identify the factors associated with VVC. Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study was based on follow-up contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) of 1412 adult patients who underwent chemoport insertion between January 2016 and December 2016. The prevalence of venous stenosis, reflux, and VVC were evaluated. The imaging features of nodular VVC, including specific locations within the vertebral body, were analyzed. To identify the factors associated with VVC, patients with VVC were compared with a subset of patients without VVC who had been followed up for > 3 years without developing VVC after chemoport insertion.Toward this, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: After excluding 333 patients, 1079 were analyzed (mean age ± standard deviation, 62.3 ± 11.6 years; 540 females).The prevalence of VVC was 5.8% (63/1079), with all patients (63/63) demonstrating vertebral venous reflux and 67% (42/63) with innominate vein stenosis. The median interval between chemoport insertion and VVC was 515 days (interquartile range, 204–881 days). The prevalence of nodular VVC was 1.5% (16/1079), with a mean size of 5.9 ± 3.1 mm and attenuation of 784 ± 162 HU. Nodular VVC tended to be located subcortically. Forty-four patients with VVC underwent CT examinations with contrast injections in both arms; the VVC disappeared in 70% (31/44) when the contrast was injected in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site. Bevacizumab use was independently associated with VVC (odds ratio, 3.45; P < 0.001). Conclusion The prevalence of VVC and nodular VVC was low in patients who underwent chemoport insertion. Nodular VVC was always accompanied by vertebral venous reflux and tended to be located subcortically. To avoid VVC, contrast injection in the arm contralateral to the chemoport site is preferred.

Purpose: Hypothalamic damage may increase the risk of adulthood obesity and cardiovascular disease in patients with craniopharyngioma. We evaluated the effects of hypothalamic involvement (HI) and growth hormone (GH) discontinuation on cardiovascular risk factors during the transition period in patients with childhood-onset craniopharyngioma. Methods: Thirty-three patients (17 males, 16 females) underwent retesting for adult GH deficiency (GHD) between 2005 and 2020 at Seoul National University Children's Hospital. Postoperative HI was graded by Puget's criteria and data regarding GH replacement were collected. At retesting, body mass index (BMI), fasting blood glucose, insulin, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, and blood pressure were assessed. Results: The mean age of commencement and discontinuation of GH replacement for childhood GHD was 10.0±3.6 and 15.3±3.1 years, respectively. The mean age at retesting for adult GHD was 17.7±2.5 years. When patients were categorized by post-GH discontinuation duration, those with durations >6 months (n=27) showed lower HDL-C levels than those with <6 months (P=0.037). Patients with extensive HI (n=16) had higher BMI z-scores than did those with no HI or mild HI (P=0.020). Both the extent of HI and longer post-GH discontinuation duration were significantly predictive for decreased HDL-C levels (P<0.05, for both). Conclusion The extent of HI and GH discontinuation duration during the transition period can increase cardiovascular risks in patients with childhood-onset craniopharyngioma.

Purpose: We aimed to assess the humoral response to and reactogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination according to the vaccine type and to analyze factors associated with immunogenicity in actively treated solid cancer patients (CPs). Materials and Methods: Prospective cohorts of CPs, undergoing anticancer treatment, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were established. The participants had no history of previous COVID-19 and received either mRNA-based or adenovirus vector–based (AdV) vaccines as the primary series. Blood samples were collected before the first vaccination and after 2 weeks for each dose vaccination. Spike-specific binding antibodies (bAbs) in all participants and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) wild-type, Delta, and Omicron variants in CPs were analyzed and presented as the geometric mean titer. Results: Age-matched 20 HCWs and 118 CPs were included in the analysis. The bAb seroconversion rate and antibody concentrations after the first vaccination were significantly lower in CPs than in HCWs. After the third vaccination, antibody levels in CPs with a primary series of AdV were comparable to those in HCWs, but nAb titers against the Omicron variant did not quantitatively increase in CPs with AdV vaccine as the primary series. The incidence and severity of adverse reactions post-vaccination were similar between CPs and HCWs. Conclusion CPs displayed delayed humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The booster dose elicited comparable bAb concentrations between CPs and HCWs, regardless of the primary vaccine type. Neutralization against the Omicron variant was not robustly elicited following the booster dose in some CPs, implying the need for additional interventions to protect them from COVID-19.

Purpose: Gastric cancer (GC) is among the most prevalent and fatal cancers worldwide.National cancer screening programs in countries with high incidences of this disease provide medical aid beneficiaries with free-of-charge screening involving upper endoscopy to detect early-stage GC. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to routine healthcare access. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, overall incidence, and stage distribution of GC. Materials and Methods: We identified patients in our hospital cancer registry who were diagnosed with GC between January 2018 and December 2021 and compared the cancer stage at diagnosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to age and sex. The years 2018 and 2019 were defined as the “before COVID” period, and the years 2020 and 2021 as the “during COVID” period. Results: Overall, 10,875 patients were evaluated; 6,535 and 4,340 patients were diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 period, respectively. The number of diagnoses was lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (189 patients/month vs. 264 patients/month) than before it.Notably, the proportion of patients with stages 3 or 4 GC in 2021 was higher among men and patients aged ≥40 years. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall number of GC diagnoses decreased significantly in a single institute. Moreover, GCs were in more advanced stages at the time of diagnosis. Further studies are required to elucidate the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay in the detection of GC worldwide.

Several studies have shown associations between irinotecan toxicity and UGT1A genetic variations in colorectal and lung cancer, but only limited data are available for gastric cancer patients. We evaluated the frequencies of UGT1A polymorphisms and their relationship with clinicopathologic parameters in 382 Korean gastric cancer patients. Polymorphisms of UGT1A1*6, UGT1A1*27, UGT1A1*28, UGT1A1*60, UGT1A7*2, UGT1A7*3, and UGT1A9*22 were genotyped by direct sequencing. In 98 patients treated with irinotecan-containing regimens, toxicity and response were compared according to the genotype. The UGT1A1*6 and UGT1A9*22 genotypes showed a higher prevalence in Korean gastric cancer patients, while the prevalence of the UG1A1*28 polymorphism was lower than in normal Koreans, as has been found in other studies of Asian populations. The incidence of severe diarrhea after irinotecan-containing treatment was more common in patients with the UGT1A1*6, UGT1A7*3, and UGT1A9*22 polymorphisms than in controls. The presence of the UGT1A1*6 allele also showed a significant association with grade III–IV neutropenia. Upon haplotype and diplotype analyses, almost every patient bearing the UGT1A1*6 or UGT1A7*3 variant also had the UGT1A9*22 polymorphism, and all severe manifestations of UGT1A polymorphism-associated toxicity were related to the UGT1A9*22 polymorphism. By genotyping UGT1A9*22 polymorphisms, we could identify high-risk gastric cancer patients receiving irinotecan-containing chemotherapy, who would experience severe toxicity. When treating high-risk patients with the UGT1A9*22 polymorphism, clinicians should closely monitor them for signs of severe toxicity such as intense diarrhea or neutropenia.