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.

Background: We evaluated and compared South Korea’s total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reimbursement criteria set by Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) with other TKA appropriateness criteria to find additional criterion to improve its appropriateness by reviewing TKA inappropriate cases. Methods: Two TKA appropriateness criteria and HIRA’s reimbursement criteria for TKA were adapted for use on patients undergoing TKA in one institute from December 2017 to April 2020. Preoperative data including 9 validated questionnaires on knee jointspecific parameters, age, and radiography were used. We categorized cases into appropriate, inconclusive, inappropriate groups and analyzed each group. Results: Data on 448 cases that underwent TKA were examined. According to the HIRA’s reimbursement criteria, 434 cases (96.9%) were appropriate and 14 cases (3.1%) were inappropriate; superior to other TKA appropriateness criteria. The inappropriate group had Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS) pain, KOOS symptoms, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score, and Korean Knee score total score with worse symptoms compared to the appropriate group classified by HIRA’s reimbursement criteria. Conclusions In terms of insurance coverage, HIRA’s reimbursement criteria was more effective in providing healthcare access to patients who had the most pressing need for TKA compared to other TKA appropriateness criteria. However, we found the lower age limit and patient-reported outcome measures of other criteria as useful tools in improving appropriateness of the current reimbursement criteria.

Cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX) is a rare genetic disease caused by a deficiency of enzymes for the synthesis of bile acid, resulting in the accumulation of cholestanol with reduced chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) production and causing various symptoms such as chronic diarrhea in infancy, juvenile cataracts in childhood, tendon xanthomas in adolescence and young adulthood, and progressive neurologic dysfunction in adulthood. Because oral CDCA replacement therapy can effectively prevent disease progression, early diagnosis and treatment are critical in CTX. This study reports the case of CTX in a 10-year-old male who presented with Achilles tendon xanthoma and mild intellectual disability. Biochemical testing showed normal cholesterol and sitosterol levels but elevated cholestanol levels. Genetic testing showed compound heterozygous variants of CYP27A1, c.379C>T (p.Arg127Trp), and c.1214G>A (p.Arg405Gln), which confirmed the diagnosis of CTX. The patient had neither cataracts nor other focal neurologic deficits and showed no abnormalities on brain imaging. The patient received oral CDCA replacement therapy without any adverse effects; thereafter, the cholestanol level decreased and no disease progression was noted. The diagnostic possibility of CTX should be considered in patients with tendon xanthoma and normolipidemic conditions to prevent neurological deterioration.

Background: Silver-Russell syndrome (SRS) is a pre- or post-natal growth retardation disorder caused by (epi)genetic alterations. We evaluated the molecular basis and clinical value of sequential epigenetic analysis in pediatric patients with SRS. Methods: Twenty-eight patients who met ≥ 3 Netchine-Harbison clinical scoring system (NH-CSS) criteria for SRS were enrolled;26 (92.9%) were born small for gestational age, and 25 (89.3%) showed postnatal growth failure. Relative macrocephaly, body asymmetry, and feeding difficulty were noted in 18 (64.3%), 13 (46.4%), and 9 (32.1%) patients, respectively. Methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MSMLPA) on chromosome 11p15 was performed as the first diagnostic step. Subsequently, bisulfite pyrosequencing (BP) for imprinting center 1 and 2 (IC1 and IC2) at chromosome 11p15, MEST on chromosome 7q32.2, and MEG3 on chromosome 14q32.2 was performed. Results: . Seventeen (60.7%) patients exhibited methylation defects, including loss of IC1 methylation (N = 14; 11 detected by MS-MLPA and three detected by BP) and maternal uniparental disomy 7 (N = 3). The diagnostic yield was comparable between patients who met three or four of the NH-CSS criteria (53.8% vs 50.0%). Patients with methylation defects responded better to growth hormone treatment. Conclusions NH-CSS is a powerful tool for SRS screening. However, in practice, genetic analysis should be considered even in patients with a low NH-CSS score. BP analysis detected additional methylation defects that were missed by MS-MLPA and might be considered as a first-line diagnostic tool for SRS.

Objective: Central nervous system involvement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been increasingly reported. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of radiologically demonstrated neurologic complications and detailed neuroimaging findings associated with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed up to September 17, 2020, and studies evaluating neuroimaging findings of COVID-19 using brain CT or MRI were included. Several cohort-based outcomes, including the proportion of patients with abnormal neuroimaging findings related to COVID-19 were evaluated. The proportion of patients showing specific neuroimaging findings was also assessed. Subgroup analyses were also conducted focusing on critically ill COVID-19 patients and results from studies that used MRI as the only imaging modality. Results: A total of 1394 COVID-19 patients who underwent neuroimaging from 17 studies were included; among them, 3.4% of the patients demonstrated COVID-19-related neuroimaging findings. Olfactory bulb abnormalities were the most commonly observed (23.1%). The predominant cerebral neuroimaging finding was white matter abnormality (17.6%), followed by acute/subacute ischemic infarction (16.0%), and encephalopathy (13.0%). Significantly more critically ill patients had COVID-19-related neuroimaging findings than other patients (9.1% vs. 1.6%; p = 0.029). The type of imaging modality used did not significantly affect the proportion of COVID-19-related neuroimaging findings. Conclusion Abnormal neuroimaging findings were occasionally observed in COVID-19 patients. Olfactory bulb abnormalities were the most commonly observed finding. Critically ill patients showed abnormal neuroimaging findings more frequently than the other patient groups. White matter abnormalities, ischemic infarctions, and encephalopathies were the common cerebral neuroimaging findings.

Growth hormone (GH) deficiency is caused by congenital or acquired causes and occurs in childhood or adulthood. GH replacement therapy brings benefits to body composition, exercise capacity, skeletal health, cardiovascular outcomes, and quality of life. Before initiating GH replacement, GH deficiency should be confirmed through proper stimulation tests, and in cases with proven genetic causes or structural lesions, repeated GH stimulation testing is not necessary. The dosing regimen of GH replacement therapy should be individualized, with the goal of minimizing side effects and maximizing clinical improvements. The Korean Endocrine Society and the Korean Society of Pediatric Endocrinology have developed a position statement on the diagnosis and treatment of GH deficiency. This position statement is based on a systematic review of evidence and expert opinions.