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.

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are widely used in Korea because of the increasing incidence of cardiocerebrovascular disease and the aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. The clinical practice guidelines for this issue, developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, were published in 2020. However, new evidence on the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management has emerged, and revised guidelines have been issued in the United States and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised. Cardiologists were part of the group that developed the guideline, and the recommendations went through a consensus-reaching process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. These guidelines provide useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are widely used in Korea because of the increasing incidence of cardiocerebrovascular disease and the aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. The clinical practice guidelines for this issue, developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, were published in 2020. However, new evidence on the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management has emerged, and revised guidelines have been issued in the United States and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised. Cardiologists were part of the group that developed the guideline, and the recommendations went through a consensus-reaching process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. These guidelines provide useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agent and anticoagulants are widely used in Korea due to increasing incidence of cardio-cerebrovascular disease and aging population. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents during endoscopic procedures is an important clinical challenge. Clinical practice guideline regarding this issue which was developed by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy was published in 2020. However, since then, new evidence has emerged for the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and direct anticoagulant management, and revised guidelines were issued in the US and Europe. Accordingly, the previous guidelines were revised, cardiologists also participated in the development group, and the recommendations went through a consensus process among international experts. This guideline presents 14 recommendations made according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and was reviewed by multidisciplinary experts. This guideline provides useful information that can assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic and elective therapeutic endoscopy. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Purpose: Frequent neutropenia hinders uninterrupted palbociclib treatment in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer. We compared the efficacy outcomes in multicenter cohorts of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) receiving palbociclib following conventional dose modification or limited modified schemes for afebrile grade 3 neutropenia. Materials and Methods: Patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative mBC (n=434) receiving palbociclib with letrozole as first-line therapy were analyzed and classified based on neutropenia grade and afebrile grade 3 neutropenia management as follows: group 1 (maintained palbociclib dose, limited scheme), group 2 (dose delay or reduction, conventional scheme), group 3 (no afebrile grade 3 neutropenia event), and group 4 (grade 4 neutropenia event). The primary and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) between groups 1 and 2 and PFS, overall survival, and safety profiles among all groups. Results: During follow-up (median 23.7 months), group 1 (2-year PFS, 67.9%) showed significantly longer PFS than did group 2 (2-year PFS, 55.3%; p=0.036), maintained across all subgroups, and upon adjustment of the factors. Febrile neutropenia occurred in one and two patients of group 1 and group 2, respectively, without mortality. Conclusion Limited dose modification for palbociclib-related grade 3 neutropenia may lead to longer PFS, without increasing toxicity, than the conventional dose scheme.

Background/Aims: The use of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is recommended for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Stent-related adverse events might differ according to the position of the stent through the ampulla of Vater (AOV). We retrospectively evaluated SEMS patency and adverse events according to the position of the SEMS. Methods: In total, 280 patients who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement due to malignant distal biliary obstruction were analyzed retrospectively. Suprapapillary and transpapillary SEMS insertions were performed on 51 patients and 229 patients, respectively. Results: Between the suprapapillary group (SPG) and transpapillary group (TPG), the stent patency period was not significantly different (median [95% confidence interval]: 107 days [82.3 to 131.7] vs 120 days [99.3 to 140.7], p=0.559). There was also no significant difference in the rate of adverse events. In subgroup analysis, the stent patency for an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV was found to be significantly shorter than that for an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV in the SPG (64 days [0 to 160.4] vs 127 days [82.0 to 171.9], p<0.001) and TPG (87 days [52.5 to 121.5] vs 130 [97.0 to 162.9], p<0.001). Patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV in both groups had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion (SPG: 40.0% vs 4.9%, p=0.002; TPG: 28.6% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) than patients with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV. Conclusions The SPG and TPG showed similar results in terms of stent patency and rate of adverse events. However, patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion with shorter stent patency than those with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV, regardless of stent position.

Objectives: Disability weights require regular updates, as they are influenced by both diseases and societal perceptions. Consequently, it is necessary to develop an up-to-date list of the causes of diseases and establish a survey panel for estimating disability weights. Accordingly, this study was conducted to calculate, assess, modify, and validate disability weights suitable for Korea, accounting for its cultural and social characteristics. Methods: The 380 causes of disease used in the survey were derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network and from 2019 and 2020 Korean studies on disability weights for causes of disease. Disability weights were reanalyzed by integrating the findings of an earlier survey on disability weights in Korea with those of the additional survey conducted in this study. The responses were transformed into paired comparisons and analyzed using probit regression analysis. Coefficients for the causes of disease were converted into predicted probabilities, and disability weights in 2 models (model 1 and 2) were rescaled using a normal distribution and the natural logarithm, respectively. Results: The mean values for the 380 causes of disease in models 1 and 2 were 0.488 and 0.369, respectively. Both models exhibited the same order of disability weights. The disability weights for the 300 causes of disease present in both the current and 2019 studies demonstrated a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.994 (p=0.001 for both models). This study presents a detailed add-on approach for calculating disability weights. Conclusions This method can be employed in other countries to obtain timely disability weight estimations.

Purpose: This study evaluates the radiation shielding performance of a new lead-free tungsten-based sheet to reduce the radiation exposure of operators and patients under C-arm fluoroscopy. Materials and Methods: A non-lead radiation shielding sheet (ROO201128; Pentas, Korea) was fabri-cated using tungsten and bismuth. The dose measurements were conducted using a C-arm fluoroscopy machine at 64 kVp and 1.5 mA, assuming two possible scenarios according to the position of the sheet. In each scenario, measurements were conducted at three distances (30, 60, and 90 cm) away from the beam center and in three directions (cephal, caudal, and operator’s direction). Results: In the area within a radius of 60 cm from the beam center, the measured doses were reduced by 66.3% on mean, and the doses measured at distances more than 60 cm were less than 0.1 mSv/h in both scenarios. The most beneficial utilization of the lead-free shielding sheet was verified during C-arm fluoroscopy by placing the sheet on the X-ray tube. The operator’s radiation exposure was reduced by 56.6% when the sheet was placed under the phantom, and by 81.0% when the sheet was placed on the X-ray tube. Conclusion The use of lead-free radiation shielding sheets under C-arm fluoroscopy was effective in reducing radiation exposure, and the most beneficial scenario in which the sheet can be utilized was verified when the sheet was placed on the X-ray tube.