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.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

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/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

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.