Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

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.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore and assess the experiences of cancer patients and their caregivers who had been admitted to comprehensive nursing care service wards. Methods: Data were collected from 10 patients and 10 caregivers by in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed using content analysis of Downe-Wamboldt. Results: Three categories and seven subcategories were extracted. 1) Realizing institutional limitations of comprehensive nursing care service: ‘Wishing for precise operating systems based on patient severity,’ ‘Anticipating active caregiver participation in treatment process,’ ‘Requiring a countermeasure for safety accidents,’ 2) Professional nursing service which provides relief: ‘Patient-centered professional nursing service,’ ‘Inpatient service that provides relief for patients and caregivers,’ 3) Anticipating continuous use of the service: ‘Inpatient service which users are willing to reuse,’ ‘Wishing for expansion and reinforcement of the service.’ Conclusion Cancer patients and their caregivers experienced institutional limitations while satisfied with professional nursing service and willing to reuse the service. To improve this situation, institutional support such as separate wards for severe patients, measures for active caregiver participation and prevention of safety accidents, and adequate staffing would be helpful for relatively severe level cancer patients and their caregivers.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore and assess the experiences of cancer patients and their caregivers who had been admitted to comprehensive nursing care service wards. Methods: Data were collected from 10 patients and 10 caregivers by in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed using content analysis of Downe-Wamboldt. Results: Three categories and seven subcategories were extracted. 1) Realizing institutional limitations of comprehensive nursing care service: ‘Wishing for precise operating systems based on patient severity,’ ‘Anticipating active caregiver participation in treatment process,’ ‘Requiring a countermeasure for safety accidents,’ 2) Professional nursing service which provides relief: ‘Patient-centered professional nursing service,’ ‘Inpatient service that provides relief for patients and caregivers,’ 3) Anticipating continuous use of the service: ‘Inpatient service which users are willing to reuse,’ ‘Wishing for expansion and reinforcement of the service.’ Conclusion Cancer patients and their caregivers experienced institutional limitations while satisfied with professional nursing service and willing to reuse the service. To improve this situation, institutional support such as separate wards for severe patients, measures for active caregiver participation and prevention of safety accidents, and adequate staffing would be helpful for relatively severe level cancer patients and their caregivers.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore and assess the experiences of cancer patients and their caregivers who had been admitted to comprehensive nursing care service wards. Methods: Data were collected from 10 patients and 10 caregivers by in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed using content analysis of Downe-Wamboldt. Results: Three categories and seven subcategories were extracted. 1) Realizing institutional limitations of comprehensive nursing care service: ‘Wishing for precise operating systems based on patient severity,’ ‘Anticipating active caregiver participation in treatment process,’ ‘Requiring a countermeasure for safety accidents,’ 2) Professional nursing service which provides relief: ‘Patient-centered professional nursing service,’ ‘Inpatient service that provides relief for patients and caregivers,’ 3) Anticipating continuous use of the service: ‘Inpatient service which users are willing to reuse,’ ‘Wishing for expansion and reinforcement of the service.’ Conclusion Cancer patients and their caregivers experienced institutional limitations while satisfied with professional nursing service and willing to reuse the service. To improve this situation, institutional support such as separate wards for severe patients, measures for active caregiver participation and prevention of safety accidents, and adequate staffing would be helpful for relatively severe level cancer patients and their caregivers.

Purpose: The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (EoCRC) is increasing worldwide. The association between hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) and EoCRC risk remains unclear. Materials and Methods: We conducted a nationwide cohort study of 3,340,635 individuals aged 20-49 years who underwent health checkups between 2009 and 2011 under the Korean National Health Insurance Service. HTG was defined as serum triglyceride (TG) level ≥ 150 mg/dL. According to the change in TG status, participants were categorized into persistent normotriglyceridemia (NTG; group 1), NTG to HTG (group 2), HTG to NTG (group 3), and persistent HTG (group 4) groups. The EoCRC incidence was followed up until 2019. Results: In total, 7,492 EoCRC cases developed after a mean of 6.05 years of follow-up. Group 4 had the highest risk of EoCRC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.097; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.025 to 1.174). While the risk of rectal cancer was significantly increased in groups 3 and 4 (aHR [95% CI], 1.236 [1.076 to 1.419] and 1.175 [1.042-1.325], respectively), no significant risk differences were observed in right colon cancer. In group 4, male sex and diabetes were associated with a further increased risk of EoCRC (aHR [95% CI], 1.149 [1.082 to 1.221] and 1.409 [1.169 to 1.699], respectively). In addition, there was a dose-response relationship between serum TG levels and the risk of EoCRC (p for trends < 0.0001). Conclusion Persistent HTG increased the risk of EoCRC, which was significantly higher only for rectal cancer and marginally higher for other colonic subsites.