This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

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.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

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: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.