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 aimed to understand the non-contact nursing experiences of clinical nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A qualitative research design applying thematic analysis was used. The participants were purposive sampled from three institutes: a tertiary hospital, a general hospital, and a residential treatment center in Seoul. Data were collected between December 2021 and January 2022 through individual in-depth interviews with 12 clinical nurses. The data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s method to identify the meaning of the participants’ experiences. Results: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the fields where the participants performed non-contact nursing included intensive care units and isolation wards of hospitals, a residential treatment center, and home cares. Their tasks in non-contact nursing commonly involved remote monitoring using digital devices or equipment, consultation and education. From their experiences performing tasks in these fields, the four theme clusters and nine themes were derived. The four theme clusters are as follows:(1) Confusion of nursing role; (2) Conflict due to insufficient support system; (3) Concern about the quality of nursing; (4) Reflection on the establishment of nursing professionalism. Conclusion This study highlights the necessity for institutionalizing professional nursing areas, nursing education, and practical support by clarifying the purpose and goals of non-contact nursing and developing nursing knowledge through frameworks.

Purpose: This study investigated the causative microorganisms, antibiotic susceptibility, and risk factors of infectious keratitis over the past 10 years. Methods: Data from patients with infectious keratitis who underwent microbial culture tests from 2012 to 2021, obtained from anonymized data systems, were analyzed. Microbial culture results and antibiotic susceptibility profiles were examined. A retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with infectious keratitis during the same period was conducted to investigate the clinical characteristics and risk factors. Results: Data from 1,837 cases of infectious keratitis were extracted from anonymized records. The culture positive rate among patients was 46.0% (1,137/2,474), with coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) being the most common causative organism (27.8%). Increased resistance to cefazolin and cefotaxime was observed in gram-negative bacteria, while there were no significant temporal changes in quinolone resistance in gram-positive or negative bacteria. A retrospective medical record analysis of 288 cases revealed that older patients, as well as those with an initial corrected visual acuity < 0.1, a history of ocular surgery, pre-existing ocular conditions, prior steroid eye drops, or glaucoma eye drops, had significantly higher rates of culture positivity. Multivariate analysis identified risk factors for severe keratitis requiring surgical intervention as a symptom-to-presentation period of 7 days or longer (p = 0.048) and pre-existing ocular conditions (p = 0.040). Conclusions CoNS was the most common microorganism causing infectious keratitis over the past decade. There has been an increase in resistance to cephalosporin antibiotics among gram-negative bacteria. Patients with pre-existing ocular conditions may require surgical intervention, so infectious keratitis in these patients requires greater attention.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), a rare cutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma, is most common in sun-exposed areas of aged individuals. Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) is one causative agent of MCC. Cases of MCC concurrent with other skin tumors, especially squamous cell carcinoma, are rarely reported. Immunohistochemical staining is performed using antibodies to the MCPyV large-T antigen (CM2B4) only in select cases. To date, no cases of MCPyV have been reported in Korea. Here we report a case of MCC concurrent with squamous cell carcinoma in an aged man and discuss the pathogenesis of the case through CM2B4 staining.

Purpose: The treatment of male breast cancer (MBC) has been extrapolated from female breast cancer (FBC) because of its rarity despite their different clinicopathologic characteristics. We aimed to investigate the distribution of intrinsic subtypes based on immunohistochemistry, their clinical impact, and treatment pattern in clinical practice through a multicenter study in Korea. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 248 MBC patients from 18 institutions across the country from January 1995 to July 2016. Results: The median age of MBC patients was 63 years (range, 25 to 102 years). Among 148 intrinsic subtype classified patients, 61 (41.2%), 44 (29.7%), 29 (19.5%), and 14 (9.5%) were luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and triple-negative breast cancer, respectively. Luminal A subtype showed trends for superior survival compared to other subtypes. Most hormone receptor-positive patients (166 patients, 82.6%) received adjuvant endocrine treatment. Five-year completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with superior disease-free survival (DFS) in patients classified with an intrinsic subtype (hazard ratio [HR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.49; p=0.002) and in all patients (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; p=0.003). Conclusion Distribution of subtypes of MBC was similar to FBC and luminal type A was most common. Overall survival tended to be improved for luminal A subtype, although there was no statistical significance. Completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with prolonged DFS in intrinsic subtype classified patients. MBC patients tended to receive less treatment. MBC patients should receive standard treatment according to guidelines as FBC patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the differences in COVID-19 work-related characteristics, workload, anxiety, stress, and burnout between nurses working in the COVID-19 designated units and those in the general units caring for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients and to identify factors related to burnout in these two nurse groups. Methods: The study was conducted using data from 192 nurses in the COVID-19 designated units and 340 nurses in the general units from two general hospitals. The data were collected using self-report, structured questionnaires.Independent t-test, chi-squared test, and logistic regression analysis were performed. Results: There were no significant differences observed in workload and burnout between the two groups. For nurses in the general units, workload, stress, adequacy of the number of patients assigned, and the experience of temporary, floating staff were significant factors associated with burnout, while only clinical experience in the current unit was a significant factor among those in the COVID-19 units. Conclusion Findings indicate significant differences in factors related to burnout between the two nurse groups. Thus, substantial support and strategies tailored to the working environments of each nursing unit are required to prevent burnout among nurses caring for COVID-19 patients.

Several medications are approved to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea including nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and regdanvimab. There is potential drug-drug interaction between antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and the medications used to treat COVID-19. Several AEDs such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and primidone are strong cytochrome P450 inducers and can inhibit the drugs used for COVID-19. Particularly, these drugs are contraindicated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®). There is a weaker drug-drug interaction between the AEDs and remdesivir. No significant interaction has been reported between the AEDs and molnupiravir. Pharmacokinetic interactions of the AEDs are important in effective management of COVID-19 in patients with epilepsy.

Purpose: We used the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID)-III to analyze the incidence and risk factors of developmental delay in very-low-birth-weight infants without severe brain lesions. We further examined the correlation between the cumulative dexamethasone dose and developmental assessment results. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of preterm infants (birth weight <1,500 g) admitted to our neonatal intensive care unit between January 2014 to December 2020. The BSID-III scores obtained between the corrected ages of 12 and 24 months and after 24 months were analyzed. Developmental delay was defined as a composite score of <85 for the cognition, language, and motor domains. Univariate and multivariate analyses of developmental delay risk factors and developmental changes from the first to second BSID-III were performed. Correlations between the accumulated dexamethasone dose used for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and the first and second test scores were analyzed. Results: Seventy-one and thirty-six infants completed the first and second tests, respectively. In both tests, developmental delay was most commonly observed in the language domain (26.8%, 47.2%). In multivariate analysis, mild BPD was identified as a developmental delay risk factor (P<0.05), whereas prenatal steroid use reduced the developmental delay risk (P<0.05). All domain scores were lower in the second test than in the first test. The cognition and language domain scores in the second test decreased with increasing cumulative dexamethasone doses. Conclusion Very-low-birth-weight infants typically experience language delay, which can persist as they age.