Purpose: Immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer; however, predictive biomarkers for optimal patient selection remain unsatisfactory. This study was aimed at evaluating the predictive value of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and insertion/deletion (Indel) rate in patients with gastric cancer treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 132 patients with gastric cancer treated with first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 185 patients treated with chemotherapy alone, all of whom had next-generation sequencing data available. The TMB and Indel cut-offs were set at 15.63 mutations per megabase and 18.19%, respectively, as determined based on their ability to best distinguish progression-free survival (PFS) among the patients who received nivolumab plus chemotherapy. Results: PFS was favorable for nivolumab and chemotherapy than for chemotherapy alone in both the high and low TMB groups; nevertheless, survival benefits were observed only in the high Indel group. Among the subgroups defined based on both TMB and Indel rates, the high TMB and high Indel rate subgroup showed the greatest benefit from nivolumab plus chemotherapy compared with that from chemotherapy alone. The benefit of this subgroup remained significant in patients with proficient mismatch repair (MMR) tumors, whose survival outcomes were comparable to those of patients with deficient MMR tumors.Among patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, high TMB and Indel rate were independently associated with favorable survival outcomes. Conclusions Thus, Indel rate, particularly in combination with TMB, may be a promising predictive biomarker for gastric cancer. However, further validation of their predictive value is warranted.

Purpose: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard minimally invasive treatment for selected patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). This study presents the first nationwide survey of patients with EGC treated with ESD in 2023, conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research. Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from participating referral centers across Korea using a standardized case report form covering patient characteristics, tumor features, procedural details, histopathological findings, and clinical outcomes.Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to summarize nationwide ESD practice patterns and outcomes. Results: Data from 5,460 ESD cases from 5,250 patients across 27 institutions were analyzed. The mean age was 67.4 years, with 74.1% males. Multiple synchronous lesions were identified in 3.7%. Most lesions were located in the lower third of the stomach (64.0%), and differentiated-type adenocarcinomas accounted for 87.8%. The en bloc and complete resection rates were 99.2% and 91.4%, respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 80.5%, whereas local non-curative resection (L-NCR) and surgical non-curative resection (S-NCR) were identified in 2.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Additional surgery was performed more frequently in patients with S-NCR than in those with L-NCR (59.3% vs. 24.7%). The bleeding and perforation rates were 3.6% and 0.9%, respectively, and were mostly managed conservatively or endoscopically. The median length of hospitalization was 4.0 days. Conclusions This first nationwide survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current practice of EGC treatment using ESD in Korea, demonstrating high technical success and safety, and establishing a baseline dataset for future longitudinal research.

The gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is one of the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Between the 1990s and early 2000s, GIST was identified as a tumor characterized by KIT or PDGFRA mutations, resulting in imatinib being established as an effective targeted therapy. However, with advances in molecular diagnostics, approximately 10%–15% of GISTs have been reported to harbor alternative mutations, such as those in the succinate dehydrogenase subunit genes and BRAF, leading to the development of additional targeted therapies. GISTs exhibit a wide spectrum of clinical behaviors, ranging from indolent to highly aggressive, prompting the development of diverse risk classification systems. However, multiple systems remain in use, leading to inconsistent pathologic reports. Moreover, the mitotic counting method—a key factor in risk stratification—has become a major source of confusion among pathologists owing to the adoption of digital pathology and discrepancies between updated international guidelines and outdated reimbursement requirements. These inconsistencies have hindered pathologic reporting and communication between pathologists and clinicians. This review comprehensively overviews the historical background, molecular subtypes, and risk classification systems of GIST, focusing on evolving issues in mitotic rate evaluation and the application of risk classification systems in clinical practice.

Neoadjuvant and perioperative therapy have emerged as promising strategies for managing locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). Landmark phase III studies, such as PRODIGY and RESOLVE, have established neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a viable therapeutic option in Asia. More recently, the MATTERHORN trial demonstrated the potential of incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into perioperative treatment. However, the use of fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel in Asian populations warrants careful consideration, given regional treatment standards and concerns regarding chemotherapyrelated toxicities, including neutropenia. This review summarizes key perioperative trials and highlights the evolving role of ICIs while also addressing emerging evidence on targeted therapies in LAGC. Key considerations include assessment of treatment response, as the validity of pathological response as a surrogate endpoint for survival remains unclear; riskand biomarker-driven patient selection; and unresolved questions regarding the necessity and optimal duration of postoperative therapy. Personalizing postoperative treatment based on prognostic and molecular markers—including clinical stage, pathological response, and circulating tumor DNA status—represents an important next step toward improving outcomes.

Objectives: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard minimally invasive treatment for selected patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). This study presents the first nationwide survey of patients with EGC treated with ESD in 2023, conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from participating referral centers across Korea using a standardized case report form covering patient characteristics, tumor features, procedural details, histopathological findings, and clinical outcomes. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to summarize nationwide ESD practice patterns and outcomes. Results: Data from 5460 ESD cases from 5250 patients across 27 institutions were analyzed. The mean age was 67.4 years, with 74.1% males. Multiple synchronous lesions were identified in 3.7%. Most lesions were located in the lower third of the stomach (64.0%), and differentiated-type adenocarcinomas accounted for 87.8%. The en bloc and complete resection rates were 99.2% and 91.4%, respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 80.5%, whereas local non-curative resection (L-NCR) and surgical non-curative resection (S-NCR) were identified in 2.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Additional surgery was performed more frequently in patients with S-NCR than in those with L-NCR (59.3% vs. 24.7%). The bleeding and perforation rates were 3.6% and 0.9%, respectively, and were mostly managed conservatively or endoscopically. The median length of hospitalization was 4.0 days. Conclusions This first nationwide survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current practice of EGC treatment using ESD in Korea, demonstrating high technical success and safety, and establishing a baseline dataset for future longitudinal research.

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: Small cell carcinoma of the genitourinary tract (GU SCC) is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. There are only limited treatment options due to insufficient understanding of the disease. In this study, we analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients with GU SCC and their association with the tumor immune phenotype. Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with GU SCC were included. Survival outcomes according to the primary location (prostate and non-prostate) and stages (limited disease [LD] and extensive disease [ED]) were analyzed. We performed multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC) in non-prostate SCC patients and analyzed the immune cell population. Results: A total of 77 patients were included in this study. Their median age was 71 years, 67 patients (87.0%) were male, and 48 patients (62.3%) had non-prostate SCC. All patients with ED (n=31, 40.3%) received etoposide plus platinum (EP) as initial treatment and median overall survival (OS) was 9.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1 to 18.6). Patients with LD (n=46, 59.7%) received EP followed by radiotherapy or surgery, and 24-months OS rate was 63.6% (95% CI, 49.9 to 81.0). The multiplex IHC analysis of 21 patients with non-prostate SCC showed that patients with a higher density of programmed death-ligand 1–expressing CD68+CD206+ M2-like macrophages had significantly worse OS outcomes with an adjusted hazards ratio of 4.17 (95% CI, 1.25 to 14.29; adjusted p=0.02). Conclusion Patients with GU SCC had a poor prognosis, even those with localized disease. The tumor immune phenotypes were significantly associated with survival. This finding provides new insights for treating GU SCC.

Purpose: Heterogeneous human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression in gastric cancer may lead to a misdiagnosis of HER2 status. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential for optimal treatment as novel HER2-directed agents are being investigated in various clinical settings. We evaluated the usefulness of HER2 re-assessment following progression on first-line treatment in initially HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 177 patients with baseline HER2-negative AGC and performed HER2 re-assessment after progression on first-line treatment from February 2012 to June 2016 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The re-assessed HER2 status was analyzed with baseline HER2 status and clinical characteristics. Results: The median age was 54 years (range, 24 to 80 years), and 123 patients (69.5%) were men. Seven patients (4.0%) were HER2-positive on the re-assessment. Patients with baseline HER2 negativity confirmed by a single test (n=100) had a higher HER2-positive re-assessment rate compared to those who had repeated baseline testing (n=77) (5.0% vs. 2.6%). Among the patients with single baseline HER2 testing, the rate was higher in patients with baseline HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ compared to those with IHC 0 (13.4% vs. 3.6%). Conclusion Overall, 4.0% of patients with baseline HER2-negative AGC were HER2-positive on re-assessment, and the HER2-positive re-assessment rate was higher among patients who had a single test at baseline. HER2 re assessment may be considered for initially HER2-negative patients to determine their eligibility for HER2-directed therapy, particularly if their HER2 negativity was determined by a single test, especially if they had a single baseline HER2 IHC 1+ test.