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: Pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (PSC) is recognized for its aggressiveness and poor prognosis. The role of radical radiotherapy in PSC remains uncertain due to its scarcity and limited data. In the absence of an effective systemic agent, this study aims to explore the possibility of cure and to investigate potential prognostic factors and treatment outcomes. Materials and Methods: From January 2005 to December 2021, 149 PSC patients were identified. Among 62 patients who received radiotherapy for lung lesions, 25 who underwent palliative radiotherapy and 16 who underwent surgery were excluded. Results: The median patient age was 71 years. The majority were male, and 17 patients (81.0%) were diagnosed at an advanced stage. After radical radiotherapy, distant metastasis (47.6%) was the most common site of failure, while the local recurrence rate was quite low (9.5%). Eventually, five patients (26.3%) demonstrated either a partial response or complete remission, including three complete remissions with durable responses. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 4.6 months and 7.9 months, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that a tumor size >5 cm was associated with a worse prognosis (p = 0.045), while a radiation dose >58 GyEQD2 was significantly associated with better PFS (p = 0.038). Conclusion This study demonstrates clinical outcomes after radical radiotherapy in managing PSC, suggesting tumor size and radiation dose could be a predictor of a systemic response. Given the known bad prognosis but complete remission could be achieved in certain subgroups, future research should explore the potential strategies using radical radiotherapy for this challenging patient population.

Background: This study aimed to examine trends in postoperative survival and surgical methods over a 25-year period in patients surgically treated for metastatic spinal tumors. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent surgical treatment for metastatic spinal tumors between 1996 and 2020. For trend analysis, the study cohort was divided into three groups according to the year of surgery: 1996– 2004, 2005–2012, and 2013–2020. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to examine survival, and the log-rank test was used to compare the survival of the top six common cancers among the periods. The surgical methods were grouped and examined as follows: fixation only, palliative decompression and fixation, gross total removal and fixation, and total en bloc spondylectomy. Results: This study included a total of 608 patients. There were 78 patients in 1996–2004, 236 in 2005–2012, and 294 in 2013– 2020. Regarding the overall survival trend, the group 2013–2020 had a significantly improved survival as compared to the other two groups (p < 0.001). According to specific cancer sites, significant survival improvement was observed in patients with lung, kidney, and breast cancers (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.022, respectively). There were no significant changes in the primary sites of the liver, colorectum, or prostate. Regarding surgical methods, the proportion of gross total tumor removal declined, whereas the proportion of palliative decompression and fixation and fixation only procedures increased. Conclusions During the past 25 years, significant survival improvement was observed in patients with lung, kidney, and breast cancers. There was no improvement in survival in patients with liver, colorectal, and prostate cancers. In terms of surgical techniques, palliative decompression and fixation only procedures increased, while gross total tumor removal declined

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.