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: This study compared the diagnostic performance of quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) with that of conventional ultrasonography (US) in assessing hepatic steatosis among individuals undergoing health screening using magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard. Methods: This single-center prospective study enrolled 427 participants who underwent abdominal MRI and US. Measurements included the attenuation coefficient in tissue attenuation imaging (TAI) and the scatter-distribution coefficient in tissue scatter-distribution imaging (TSI). The correlation between QUS and MRI-PDFF was evaluated. The diagnostic capabilities of QUS, conventional B-mode US, and their combined models for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% (MRI-PDFF ≥5%) and ≥10% (MRI-PDFF ≥10%) were compared by analyzing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Additionally, clinical risk factors influencing the diagnostic performance of QUS were identified using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results: TAI and TSI were strongly correlated with MRI-PDFF (r=0.759 and r=0.802, respectively; both P<0.001) and demonstrated good diagnostic performance in detecting and grading hepatic steatosis. The combination of QUS and B-mode US resulted in the highest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.947 and 0.975 for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% and ≥10%, respectively; both P<0.05), compared to TAI, TSI, or B-mode US alone (AUCs: 0.887, 0.910, 0.878 for ≥5% and 0.951, 0.922, 0.875 for ≥10%, respectively). The independent determinants of QUS included skinliver capsule distance (β=7.134), hepatic fibrosis (β=4.808), alanine aminotransferase (β=0.202), triglyceride levels (β=0.027), and diabetes mellitus (β=3.710). Conclusion QUS is a useful and effective screening tool for detecting and grading hepatic steatosis during health checkups.

Purpose: This study compared the diagnostic performance of quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) with that of conventional ultrasonography (US) in assessing hepatic steatosis among individuals undergoing health screening using magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard. Methods: This single-center prospective study enrolled 427 participants who underwent abdominal MRI and US. Measurements included the attenuation coefficient in tissue attenuation imaging (TAI) and the scatter-distribution coefficient in tissue scatter-distribution imaging (TSI). The correlation between QUS and MRI-PDFF was evaluated. The diagnostic capabilities of QUS, conventional B-mode US, and their combined models for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% (MRI-PDFF ≥5%) and ≥10% (MRI-PDFF ≥10%) were compared by analyzing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Additionally, clinical risk factors influencing the diagnostic performance of QUS were identified using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results: TAI and TSI were strongly correlated with MRI-PDFF (r=0.759 and r=0.802, respectively; both P<0.001) and demonstrated good diagnostic performance in detecting and grading hepatic steatosis. The combination of QUS and B-mode US resulted in the highest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.947 and 0.975 for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% and ≥10%, respectively; both P<0.05), compared to TAI, TSI, or B-mode US alone (AUCs: 0.887, 0.910, 0.878 for ≥5% and 0.951, 0.922, 0.875 for ≥10%, respectively). The independent determinants of QUS included skinliver capsule distance (β=7.134), hepatic fibrosis (β=4.808), alanine aminotransferase (β=0.202), triglyceride levels (β=0.027), and diabetes mellitus (β=3.710). Conclusion QUS is a useful and effective screening tool for detecting and grading hepatic steatosis during health checkups.

Purpose: This study compared the diagnostic performance of quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) with that of conventional ultrasonography (US) in assessing hepatic steatosis among individuals undergoing health screening using magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard. Methods: This single-center prospective study enrolled 427 participants who underwent abdominal MRI and US. Measurements included the attenuation coefficient in tissue attenuation imaging (TAI) and the scatter-distribution coefficient in tissue scatter-distribution imaging (TSI). The correlation between QUS and MRI-PDFF was evaluated. The diagnostic capabilities of QUS, conventional B-mode US, and their combined models for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% (MRI-PDFF ≥5%) and ≥10% (MRI-PDFF ≥10%) were compared by analyzing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Additionally, clinical risk factors influencing the diagnostic performance of QUS were identified using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results: TAI and TSI were strongly correlated with MRI-PDFF (r=0.759 and r=0.802, respectively; both P<0.001) and demonstrated good diagnostic performance in detecting and grading hepatic steatosis. The combination of QUS and B-mode US resulted in the highest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.947 and 0.975 for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% and ≥10%, respectively; both P<0.05), compared to TAI, TSI, or B-mode US alone (AUCs: 0.887, 0.910, 0.878 for ≥5% and 0.951, 0.922, 0.875 for ≥10%, respectively). The independent determinants of QUS included skinliver capsule distance (β=7.134), hepatic fibrosis (β=4.808), alanine aminotransferase (β=0.202), triglyceride levels (β=0.027), and diabetes mellitus (β=3.710). Conclusion QUS is a useful and effective screening tool for detecting and grading hepatic steatosis during health checkups.

Purpose: The Korean Society of Coloproctology has been conducting Colorectal Cancer Awareness Campaign, also known as the Gold Ribbon Campaign, every September since 2007. The 2022 campaign was held through a metaverse platform targeting the younger age group under the slogan of raising awareness of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to analyze the impact of the 2022 campaign on a metaverse platform. Methods: Anonymized survey data were collected from participants in the metaverse campaign from September 1 to 15, 2022. The satisfaction score of the participants was evaluated by sex, age group, and previous campaign participation status. Results: During the campaign, 2,770 people visited the metaverse. Among them, 455 people participated in the survey (response rate, 16.4%). Approximately 95% of the participants reported being satisfied with the information provided by the campaign, understood the necessity of undergoing screening for and prevention of early-onset CRC, and were familiar with the structure of the metaverse. The satisfaction score for campaign information tended to decrease as the participants’ age increased. When the participants’ overall level of satisfaction with the metaverse platform was assessed, teenagers scored particularly lower than the other age groups. The satisfaction scores for CRC information provided in the metaverse, as well as the scores for recognizing the seriousness and necessity of screening for early-onset CRC, indicated a high positive tendency (P<0.001). Conclusion Most of the 2022 Gold Ribbon Campaign participants were satisfied with the metaverse platform. Medical society should pay attention to increasing participation in and satisfaction with future public campaigns.

Purpose: This study compared the diagnostic performance of quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) with that of conventional ultrasonography (US) in assessing hepatic steatosis among individuals undergoing health screening using magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard. Methods: This single-center prospective study enrolled 427 participants who underwent abdominal MRI and US. Measurements included the attenuation coefficient in tissue attenuation imaging (TAI) and the scatter-distribution coefficient in tissue scatter-distribution imaging (TSI). The correlation between QUS and MRI-PDFF was evaluated. The diagnostic capabilities of QUS, conventional B-mode US, and their combined models for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% (MRI-PDFF ≥5%) and ≥10% (MRI-PDFF ≥10%) were compared by analyzing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Additionally, clinical risk factors influencing the diagnostic performance of QUS were identified using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results: TAI and TSI were strongly correlated with MRI-PDFF (r=0.759 and r=0.802, respectively; both P<0.001) and demonstrated good diagnostic performance in detecting and grading hepatic steatosis. The combination of QUS and B-mode US resulted in the highest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.947 and 0.975 for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% and ≥10%, respectively; both P<0.05), compared to TAI, TSI, or B-mode US alone (AUCs: 0.887, 0.910, 0.878 for ≥5% and 0.951, 0.922, 0.875 for ≥10%, respectively). The independent determinants of QUS included skinliver capsule distance (β=7.134), hepatic fibrosis (β=4.808), alanine aminotransferase (β=0.202), triglyceride levels (β=0.027), and diabetes mellitus (β=3.710). Conclusion QUS is a useful and effective screening tool for detecting and grading hepatic steatosis during health checkups.

Purpose: This study compared the diagnostic performance of quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) with that of conventional ultrasonography (US) in assessing hepatic steatosis among individuals undergoing health screening using magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard. Methods: This single-center prospective study enrolled 427 participants who underwent abdominal MRI and US. Measurements included the attenuation coefficient in tissue attenuation imaging (TAI) and the scatter-distribution coefficient in tissue scatter-distribution imaging (TSI). The correlation between QUS and MRI-PDFF was evaluated. The diagnostic capabilities of QUS, conventional B-mode US, and their combined models for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% (MRI-PDFF ≥5%) and ≥10% (MRI-PDFF ≥10%) were compared by analyzing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Additionally, clinical risk factors influencing the diagnostic performance of QUS were identified using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results: TAI and TSI were strongly correlated with MRI-PDFF (r=0.759 and r=0.802, respectively; both P<0.001) and demonstrated good diagnostic performance in detecting and grading hepatic steatosis. The combination of QUS and B-mode US resulted in the highest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.947 and 0.975 for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% and ≥10%, respectively; both P<0.05), compared to TAI, TSI, or B-mode US alone (AUCs: 0.887, 0.910, 0.878 for ≥5% and 0.951, 0.922, 0.875 for ≥10%, respectively). The independent determinants of QUS included skinliver capsule distance (β=7.134), hepatic fibrosis (β=4.808), alanine aminotransferase (β=0.202), triglyceride levels (β=0.027), and diabetes mellitus (β=3.710). Conclusion QUS is a useful and effective screening tool for detecting and grading hepatic steatosis during health checkups.

Purpose: Oxaliplatin, a component of the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) regimen, has a more favorable toxicity profile than cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). However, oxaliplatin can induce sensory neuropathy and cumulative, dose-related toxicities. Thus, the capecitabine maintenance regimen may achieve the maximum treatment effect while reducing the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with advanced GC between capecitabine maintenance and observation after 1st line XELOX chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients treated with six cycles of XELOX for advanced GC in six hospitals of the Catholic University of Korea were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine maintenance or observation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed using a two-sided log-rank test stratified at a 5% significance level. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 32 and 31 patients were randomized into the maintenance and observation groups, respectively. After randomization, the median number of capecitabine maintenance cycles was 6. The PFS was significantly higher in the maintenance group than the observation group (6.3 vs. 4.1 months, P=0.010). Overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (18.2 vs. 16.5 months, P=0.624). Toxicities, such as hand-foot syndrome, were reported in some maintenance group patients. Maintenance treatment was a significant factor associated with PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.250–0.890; P=0.020). Conclusions After 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy, capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged PFS compared with observation, and toxicity was manageable. Maintenance treatment was a significant prognostic factor associated with PFS.