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.

Methods: This study included 104 patients who underwent ULIF using the “insert and revolve technique” between July 2019 and September 2022. The patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified McNab’s criteria. Changes in segmental lordosis (SL), intervertebral disc height (IVDH), segmental coronal alignment (SCA), cage subsidence, and fusion grade were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The VAS scores for leg and back pain and ODI score showed significant improvement. Based on the Macnab’s criteria, 97 patients showed excellent outcomes and seven demonstrated good outcomes at 12 months. The mean IVDH increased from 6.3±2 to 10±2.1 mm immediately after surgery and 10±1.1 mm at 6 months. SL improved from 9.3°±11.5° to 17.78°±8.1°, while SCA improved from 7.7°±2.1° to 3.4°±1.2° at 1 year. Moreover, 92 and 11 patients showed grade 1 and 2 fusion, respectively, according to the Bridwell grading at 1 year. Conclusions The “insert and revolve technique” facilitates the successful insertion of large cages, contributing to the restoration of disc height and coronal and sagittal spinal correction with favorable fusion rates.

Purpose: Heterogeneous human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression in gastric cancer may lead to a misdiagnosis of HER2 status. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential for optimal treatment as novel HER2-directed agents are being investigated in various clinical settings. We evaluated the usefulness of HER2 re-assessment following progression on first-line treatment in initially HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 177 patients with baseline HER2-negative AGC and performed HER2 re-assessment after progression on first-line treatment from February 2012 to June 2016 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The re-assessed HER2 status was analyzed with baseline HER2 status and clinical characteristics. Results: The median age was 54 years (range, 24 to 80 years), and 123 patients (69.5%) were men. Seven patients (4.0%) were HER2-positive on the re-assessment. Patients with baseline HER2 negativity confirmed by a single test (n=100) had a higher HER2-positive re-assessment rate compared to those who had repeated baseline testing (n=77) (5.0% vs. 2.6%). Among the patients with single baseline HER2 testing, the rate was higher in patients with baseline HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ compared to those with IHC 0 (13.4% vs. 3.6%). Conclusion Overall, 4.0% of patients with baseline HER2-negative AGC were HER2-positive on re-assessment, and the HER2-positive re-assessment rate was higher among patients who had a single test at baseline. HER2 re assessment may be considered for initially HER2-negative patients to determine their eligibility for HER2-directed therapy, particularly if their HER2 negativity was determined by a single test, especially if they had a single baseline HER2 IHC 1+ test.

Purpose: B-cell depleting therapies, including T-cell engager (TCE), are increasingly used for patients with hematologic malignancies, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between TCE therapy and COVID-19–related outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and B-cell lymphomas receiving B-cell depleting therapy. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with B-cell lymphoma, who were admitted to Seoul Natio-nal University Hospital with COVID-19 between September 2021 and February 2023, and received B-cell depleting therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with severe to critical COVID-19 and COVID-19–related mortality. Results: Of 54 patients with B-cell lymphomas and COVID-19 who received B-cell depleting therapy, 14 were treated with TCE (TCE group) and 40 with rituximab (RTX group). COVID-19–related mortality was higher in the TCE group than in the RTX group (57.1% vs. 12.5%, p=0.002). In multivariable analyses, TCE therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 38.76; p=0.024) and older age (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; p=0.035) were associated with severe to critical COVID-19. TCE therapy (aOR, 8.98; 95% CI, 1.48 to 54.40; p=0.017), older age (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.26; p=0.022), and prior bendamustine therapy (aOR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.17 to 51.65; p=0.034) were independent risk factors for COVID-19–related mortality. Conclusion B-cell lymphoma patients treated with TCE had significantly worse outcomes from COVID-19 than those treated with RTX. TCE therapy should be used with caution in B-cell lymphoma patients during the COVID-19 epidemic.

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.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify clinical and radiologic characteristics that could predict response to atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 108 advanced HCC patients with intrahepatic lesions who were treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab. Two radiologists independently analyzed imaging characteristics of the index tumor on pretreatment computed tomography. Predictive factors associated with progressive disease (PD) at the best response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, ver. 1.1 were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Results: Of 108 patients with a median PFS of 15 weeks, 40 (37.0%) had PD during treatment. Factors associated with PD included the presence of extrahepatic metastases (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 14.35; p=0.03), the infiltrative appearance of the tumor (aOR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.05 to 8.93; p=0.04), and the absence of arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE) (aOR, 6.34; 95% CI, 2.18 to 18.47; p < 0.001). Patients with two or more of these factors had a PD of 66.7% and a median PFS of 8 weeks, indicating a significantly worse outcome compared to the patients with one or no of these factors. Conclusion In patients with advanced HCC treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment, the absence of APHE, infiltrative appearance of the intrahepatic tumor, and presence of extrahepatic metastases were associated with poor response and survival. Evaluation of early response may be necessary in patients with these factors.