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.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

Purpose: The partner and localizer of breast cancer 2 (PALB2) mutation is a predisposition to breast cancer development. However, limited clinical data are available for the Korean population. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the characteristics and oncological outcomes of patients with PALB2-mutated and non-mutated PALB2 in Korea. Methods: A total of 1,463 breast cancer (BRCA) 1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer underwent comprehensive multigene sequencing between 2016 and 2019 at Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Clinicopathological data and oncological results of PALB2 mutated patients were prospectively collected and compared with those of the non-mutated group. Results: PALB2 mutations were identified in 1.2% (17/1,463) of the patients. The median age at diagnosis was 46 (30–73) years, and the median tumor size was 1.8 (0.05–3.5) cm. All patients with PALB2 mutations had histologic grades II–III, and a triple-negative subtype was found in 23.5% (4/17); however, there were no significant differences in clinicopathological data between the groups. During the median follow-up time of 38.5 months, locoregional recurrence occurred in 4.2% (44/1,043), distant recurrence was reported in 3.0% (31/1,043), and contralateral breast cancer was diagnosed in 0.8% (9/1,043) of patients, with no significant difference observed between the groups. All-cause mortality was observed in 1.8% (19/1,028) of the non-mutated group and none in the PALB2 mutation group. However, survival analyses demonstrated no significant differences in all-cause mortality (p = 0.524) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.319). Conclusion Clinicopathological features and oncological outcomes of PALB2 mutated breast cancer were not significantly different from those of non-mutated breast cancer in the Korean population.

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.