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: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the leading cause of hospitalization and is associated with in-hospital mortality. This study aimed to elucidate the epidemiology and clinical outcomes of ARF. Methods: We retrospectively screened patients admitted to three hospitals in South Korea between January 2018 and December 2022. We included individuals aged 18 years, diagnosed with either type 1 ARF (arterial oxygen partial pressure [PaO2] <60 mm Hg) or type 2 ARF (arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2) >45 mm Hg) with a pH of <7.35, or diagnosed with the combined-type ARF. Results: Among the 768,700 hospitalized patients, 33,278 (4.3%) developed ARF. The most common cause of ARF was sepsis (15,757 patients, 47.3%), and the most frequent comorbidity was malignancy (15,403 patients, 43.6%). Among ARF patients, 15,671 (47.1%) required intensive care unit transfer, while 8,980 (27.0%) experienced in-hospital mortality. Over 5 years, the proportion of ARF patients aged 80 years and older has shown a consistent annual increase (coefficient, 0.085 and Ptrend <0.001). Concurrently, the in-hospital mortality rate exhibited an upward trend, increasing from 25.5% in 2018 to 29.3% in 2022 (coefficient, 1.017 and Ptrend<0.001). Among the respiratory support methods used for patients with ARF over the 5-year period, high-flow nasal cannula usage steadily increased (coefficient, 4.137 and Ptrend<0.001), whereas the use of invasive mechanical ventilation declined (coefficient, –0.983 and Ptrend<0.001). Conclusions ARF frequency and in-hospital mortality rates are increasing, driven by various etiologies. Despite these trends, research on the epidemiology and individualized treatments for older patients is limited, highlighting the need for nationwide prospective multicenter studies.

Background: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.

Background: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is a rare inflammatory neoplasia of the dendritic cells that can affect the whole body and commonly affect the pediatric age. Adult onset LCH is relatively rare, and the cutaneous form without any other organ involvement is much more uncommon. A 62-year-old woman visited the clinic presenting pruritic erythematous papule and nodules on the whole body, from which she suffered for several years. Skin biopsy showed hyperkeratosis, mild acanthosis, intra-epidermal tumor cell infiltration, and band-like tumor cell infiltration. Cells infiltrating the epidermis and dermis showed characteristics consistent with Langerhans cells. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed tumor cells highlighted with CD1a and S-100, but not with CD68, and therefore, diagnosed as LCH. The patient showed no evidence of any other organ manifestation, which led the final diagnosis of single-system LCH. This case highlights a rare adult-onset cutaneous form of single-system LCH with skin manifestations very similar to prurigo nodularis.

Background: In the current situation, where severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is rapidly spreading, vaccines for coronavirus are thought to be the most effective approach to containing the situation.However, limited comparative data are available on cutaneous adverse reactions to coronavirus vaccination in Korea. Objective: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and histopathological characteristics of adverse cutaneous reactions following coronavirus vaccination. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and histopathological characteristics of 95 patients who were vaccinated with Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen vaccines and visited the Dermatology Departments of Dankook University Hospital and Chungnam National University Hospital. Results: The mean age was 49.3±17.5 years. Patients who received the AstraZeneca vaccine had an average age of 61.7±10.8 years, significantly higher than those in the Pfizer (44.1±18.7 years) and Moderna (42.5±15.0 years) groups (p＜0.001). Of the 95 patients, 36 (37.9%) were diagnosed with urticaria, 24 (25.3%) with morbilliform eruption, 18 (18.9%) with petechiae and purpura, and eight (8.4%) with erythema multiforme. Additionally, there were diagnoses of erythema nodosum, alopecia areata, eczema, generalized pustular psoriasis, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, pityriasis rosea, and bullous pemphigoid. In the AstraZeneca-vaccinated group, the proportion of morbilliform eruptions was significantly higher than that in the Pfizer- and Moderna-vaccinated groups (p=0.008). The Pfizer- and Moderna-vaccinated groups had higher rates of urticaria than did the AstraZeneca-vaccinated group. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.083). Conclusion This study described the clinical characteristics of cutaneous adverse reactions after coronavirus vaccination.

Objective: Adenomyosis impacts pregnancy outcomes, although there is a lack of consensus regarding the actual effects. It is likely, however, that the severity of adenomyosis or ultrasound findings or timing of diagnosis can have different effects on adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). Methods: In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of the timing of adenomyosis diagnosis on pregnancy outcomes. Singleton pregnant women who delivered between 2017 and 2022 were analyzed based on the timing of adenomyosis diagnosis, using a national database. The final cohort was classified into three groups: 1) group 1, without adenomyosis; 2) group 2, those diagnosed with adenomyosis before pregnancy; and 3) group 3, those diagnosed with adenomyosis during pregnancy. Results: A total of 1,226,475 cases were ultimately included in this study. Women with a diagnosis of adenomyosis had a significantly higher risk of APOs including hypertensive disorder during pregnancy (HDP), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), postpartum hemorrhage, placental abruption, preterm birth, and delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant even after adjusting for covariates. In particular, concerning HDP, the risk was highest in group 3 (group 2: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.15 vs. group 3: aOR, 1.36). However, the highest GDM risk was in group 2 (GDM; group 2: aOR, 1.24 vs. group 3: aOR, 1.04). Conclusion The increased risk of APO differed depending on the timing of adenomyosis diagnosis. Therefore, efforts for more careful monitoring and prevention of APOs may be necessary when such women become pregnant.

Background: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.