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.

Objectives: To involve institutions without the ability to perform susceptibility testing, long-term storage of tissue sample is critical to isolate the bacteria in a central laboratory. The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of H. pylori isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen biopsy specimens collected from various institutions. Methods: Eight institutions located in various regions of Korea participated in the study. Patients requiring upper endoscopy and H. pylori testing were screened. Two biopsy samples were taken from the stomach. One was placed in a sterile Eppendorf tube and then immediately placed in a vacuum bottle containing dry ice, which was stored at -80°C. The other was used in a rapid urease test. Collected samples were delivered to a central laboratory. The bacteria were isolated from the frozen samples under microaerophilic conditions. The agar dilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin for each H. pylori isolate. Results: Patients with a positive rapid urease test result (n=113) were enrolled. The mean age was 56.6±12.3 years. The male:female ratio was 64:49. The overall culture success rate was 77.0% (87/113). MIC values were determined using isolated 87 H. pylori strains. Rates of resistance to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin were 23.0%, 25.3%, 28.7%, 1.1%, 33.3%, and 34.5%, respectively. Conclusions It is feasible to perform H. pylori isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen and transported biopsy specimens.

Objectives: To involve institutions without the ability to perform susceptibility testing, long-term storage of tissue sample is critical to isolate the bacteria in a central laboratory. The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of H. pylori isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen biopsy specimens collected from various institutions. Methods: Eight institutions located in various regions of Korea participated in the study. Patients requiring upper endoscopy and H. pylori testing were screened. Two biopsy samples were taken from the stomach. One was placed in a sterile Eppendorf tube and then immediately placed in a vacuum bottle containing dry ice, which was stored at -80°C. The other was used in a rapid urease test. Collected samples were delivered to a central laboratory. The bacteria were isolated from the frozen samples under microaerophilic conditions. The agar dilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin for each H. pylori isolate. Results: Patients with a positive rapid urease test result (n=113) were enrolled. The mean age was 56.6±12.3 years. The male:female ratio was 64:49. The overall culture success rate was 77.0% (87/113). MIC values were determined using isolated 87 H. pylori strains. Rates of resistance to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin were 23.0%, 25.3%, 28.7%, 1.1%, 33.3%, and 34.5%, respectively. Conclusions It is feasible to perform H. pylori isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen and transported biopsy specimens.

Objectives: To involve institutions without the ability to perform susceptibility testing, long-term storage of tissue sample is critical to isolate the bacteria in a central laboratory. The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of H. pylori isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen biopsy specimens collected from various institutions. Methods: Eight institutions located in various regions of Korea participated in the study. Patients requiring upper endoscopy and H. pylori testing were screened. Two biopsy samples were taken from the stomach. One was placed in a sterile Eppendorf tube and then immediately placed in a vacuum bottle containing dry ice, which was stored at -80°C. The other was used in a rapid urease test. Collected samples were delivered to a central laboratory. The bacteria were isolated from the frozen samples under microaerophilic conditions. The agar dilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin for each H. pylori isolate. Results: Patients with a positive rapid urease test result (n=113) were enrolled. The mean age was 56.6±12.3 years. The male:female ratio was 64:49. The overall culture success rate was 77.0% (87/113). MIC values were determined using isolated 87 H. pylori strains. Rates of resistance to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin were 23.0%, 25.3%, 28.7%, 1.1%, 33.3%, and 34.5%, respectively. Conclusions It is feasible to perform H. pylori isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen and transported biopsy specimens.

Objectives: To involve institutions without the ability to perform susceptibility testing, long-term storage of tissue sample is critical to isolate the bacteria in a central laboratory. The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of H. pylori isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen biopsy specimens collected from various institutions. Methods: Eight institutions located in various regions of Korea participated in the study. Patients requiring upper endoscopy and H. pylori testing were screened. Two biopsy samples were taken from the stomach. One was placed in a sterile Eppendorf tube and then immediately placed in a vacuum bottle containing dry ice, which was stored at -80°C. The other was used in a rapid urease test. Collected samples were delivered to a central laboratory. The bacteria were isolated from the frozen samples under microaerophilic conditions. The agar dilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin for each H. pylori isolate. Results: Patients with a positive rapid urease test result (n=113) were enrolled. The mean age was 56.6±12.3 years. The male:female ratio was 64:49. The overall culture success rate was 77.0% (87/113). MIC values were determined using isolated 87 H. pylori strains. Rates of resistance to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin were 23.0%, 25.3%, 28.7%, 1.1%, 33.3%, and 34.5%, respectively. Conclusions It is feasible to perform H. pylori isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen and transported biopsy specimens.

Objectives: To involve institutions without the ability to perform susceptibility testing, long-term storage of tissue sample is critical to isolate the bacteria in a central laboratory. The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of H. pylori isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen biopsy specimens collected from various institutions. Methods: Eight institutions located in various regions of Korea participated in the study. Patients requiring upper endoscopy and H. pylori testing were screened. Two biopsy samples were taken from the stomach. One was placed in a sterile Eppendorf tube and then immediately placed in a vacuum bottle containing dry ice, which was stored at -80°C. The other was used in a rapid urease test. Collected samples were delivered to a central laboratory. The bacteria were isolated from the frozen samples under microaerophilic conditions. The agar dilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin for each H. pylori isolate. Results: Patients with a positive rapid urease test result (n=113) were enrolled. The mean age was 56.6±12.3 years. The male:female ratio was 64:49. The overall culture success rate was 77.0% (87/113). MIC values were determined using isolated 87 H. pylori strains. Rates of resistance to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin were 23.0%, 25.3%, 28.7%, 1.1%, 33.3%, and 34.5%, respectively. Conclusions It is feasible to perform H. pylori isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using rapidly frozen and transported biopsy specimens.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is dominating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. The waning protective effect of available vaccines against the Omicron variant is a critical public health issue. This study aimed to assess the impact of the third COVID-19 vaccination on immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 strain in older individuals. Materials and Methods: Adults aged ≥60 years who had completed two doses of the homologous COVID-19 vaccine with either BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech, New York, NY, USA, BNT) or ChAdOx1 nCoV (SK bioscience, Andong-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, ChAd) were registered to receive the third vaccination. Participants chose either BNT or mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Norwood, MA, USA, m1273) mRNA vaccine for the third dose and were categorized into four groups: ChAd/ChAd/BNT, ChAd/ChAd/m1273, BNT/BNT/BNT, and BNT/BNT/m1273. Four serum specimens were obtained from each participant at 0, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after the third dose (V1, V2, V3, and V4, respectively).Serum-neutralizing antibody (NAb) activity against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020 (NCCP43326, ancestral strain) and B.1.1.529 (NCCP43411, Omicron BA.1 variant) was measured using plaque reduction neutralization tests. A 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) >10 was considered indicative of protective NAb titers. Results: In total, 186 participants were enrolled between November 24, 2021, and June 30, 2022. The respective groups received the third dose at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 132 (125 - 191), 123 (122 - 126), 186 (166 -193), and 182 (175 - 198) days after the second dose. Overall, ND 50 was lower at V1 against Omicron BA.1 than against the ancestral strain. NAb titers against the ancestral strain and Omicron BA.1 variant at V2 were increased at least 30-fold (median [IQR], 1235.35 [1021.45 - 2374.65)] and 129.8 [65.3 - 250.7], respectively). ND 50 titers against the ancestral strain and Omicron variant did not differ significantly among the four groups (P= 0.57). NAb titers were significantly lower against the Omicron variant than against the ancestral strain at V3 (median [IQR], 36.4 (17.55 - 75.09) vs. 325.9 [276.07 - 686.97]; P = 0.012). NAb titers against Omicron at V4 were 16 times lower than that at V3. Most sera exhibited a protective level (ND 50 >10) at V4 (75.0% [24/32], 73.0% [27/37], 73.3% [22/30], and 70.6% [12/17] in the ChAd/ChAd/BNT, ChAd/ChAd/m1273, BNT/BNT/BNT, and BNT/BNT/m1273 groups, respectively), with no significant differences among groups (P = 0.99). Conclusion A third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose restored waning NAb titers against Omicron BA.1. Our findings support a third-dose vaccination program to prevent the waning of humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

Concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines against the rapidly spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are increasing. This study aimed to assess neutralizing antibody activity against the wild-type (BetaCoV/Korea/ KCDC03/2020), delta, and omicron variants after full primary and booster vaccinations with BNT162b2. A plaque reduction neutralization test was employed to determine 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) titers in serum samples. ND 50 titers against the omicron variant (median [interquartile range], 5.3 [< 5.0–12.7]) after full primary vaccination were lower than those against the wild-type (144.8 [44.7–294.0]) and delta (24.3 [14.3–81.1]) variants.Furthermore, 19/30 participants (63.3%) displayed lower ND 50 titers than the detection threshold (< 10.0) against omicron after full primary vaccination. However, the booster vaccine significantly increased ND 50 titers against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020, delta, and omicron, although titers against omicron remained lower than those against the other variants (P < 0.001). Our study suggests that booster vaccination with BNT162b2 significantly increases humoral immunity against the omicron variant.