Objectives: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic inflammation of the nasal mucosa triggered by environmental allergens. Although its pathophysiology has been extensively investigated, the influence of environmental aggravating factors—particularly combined pollutant exposure—remains insufficiently characterized. This study aimed to assess the impact of coexposure to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn on allergic inflammation in a murine AR model and to delineate the associated immunological and histopathological responses. Methods: Female BALB/c mice were sensitized with ovalbumin (OVA) and challenged intranasally to induce AR. On days 21–24, the mice were exposed to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn, either individually or in combination with OVA. Allergic symptoms were evaluated through behavioral observation, while immune responses were assessed by analyzing nasal and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (NALF and BALF), serum immunoglobulin levels, nasal histopathology, and cytokine profiles. Results: Combined exposure to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn significantly intensified allergic inflammation compared with single exposures. Coexposure to PM2.5 and Zn led to synergistic increases in total and OVA-specific immunoglobulin E levels, eosinophilic infiltration, nasal rubbing, sneezing, and Th2/Th17 cytokine levels in NALF and BALF. Histological analysis demonstrated epithelial thickening and goblet cell hyperplasia after combined exposure. Other combinations, including PM2.5 with formaldehyde, also produced additive or modestly amplified inflammatory responses. Conclusions Coexposure to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn aggravated allergic inflammation in an OVA-induced murine model, with PM2.5+Zn yielding the strongest synergistic effects. These findings emphasize the role of pollutant–pollutant interactions in allergic airway diseases and highlight the need for further research to clarify long-term health effects and relevance to human disease.

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.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Accurate estimation of nutrient intake from food consumption requires reliable food composition data. However, since nutrient content changes during cooking, the application of raw ingredient composition may lead to overestimation, particularly for energy and fat in meat dishes. In this study, the suitability of applying cooked food codes for meat dishes to improve the validity of recipe-based nutrient content estimation was evaluated.MATERIALS/METHODS: Pork (thin-sliced and thick-cut belly and shoulder butt) and beef (tenderloin, loin, rib meat, and brisket point) were examined for cooking yield after grilling and their nutrient contents were estimated. Each cut was portioned to 100 g of raw meat and cooked in triplicate. Nutrient content was calculated using both raw and cooked meat codes from the Korean Standard Food Composition Table, and differences in energy, fat, and protein content were compared. RESULTS: When grilled under standardized conditions, the average cooking yield was approximately 65% for pork and 80% for beef (P < 0.0001). Thin slices of pork belly had a lower yield (62.6%) than thicker cuts (68.0%), while beef brisket point had the lowest yield among beef cuts (63.6%). Applying cooked meat codes and measured cooking yields resulted in overall decreases in energy (−10% to −50%) and fat (−20% to −60%) content, with slight increase in protein (up to +34%, P < 0.0001). For beef tenderloin, additional comparisons using matched raw and grilled data from the United States Department of Agriculture SR Legacy Database showed smaller percent differences in energy, fat, and protein than those obtained from the Korean database. CONCLUSION Incorporating measured cooking yields and corresponding cooked meat codes into recipe-based databases can improve the accuracy of nutrient intake estimation. The development of nutrient databases that reflect differences in cooking conditions—including temperature, duration, and doneness—should be prioritized to enhance the validity of national dietary surveys.

The natural course of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression in children varies according to their underlying conditions. This study aims to identify different patterns of subsequent decline in kidney function and investigate factors associated with different patterns of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) trajectories. Methods: We analyzed data from the KNOW-Ped CKD (KoreaN cohort study for Outcomes in patients With Pediatric Chronic Kidney Disease), which is a longitudinal, prospective cohort study. A latent class linear mixed model was applied to identify the trajectory groups. Results: In a total of 287 patients, the median baseline eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) was 63.3, and the median age was 11.5 years. The eGFR decline rate was –1.54 during a 6.0-year follow-up. The eGFR trajectory over time was classified into four groups. Classes 1 (n = 103) and 2 (n = 11) had a slightly reduced eGFR at enrollment with a stable trend (ΔeGFR, –0.2/year) and a rapid decline eGFR over time (ΔeGFR, –10.5/year), respectively. Class 3 had a normal eGFR (n = 16), and class 4 had a moderately reduced eGFR (n = 157); both these chasses showed a linear decline in eGFR over time (ΔeGFR, –4.1 and –2.4/year). In comparison with classes 1 and 2, after adjusting for age, causes of primary renal disease, and baseline eGFR, nephrotic-range proteinuria was associated with a rapid decline in eGFR (odds ratio, 8.13). Conclusion: We identified four clinically relevant subgroups of kidney function trajectories in children with CKD. Most children showed a linear decline in eGFR; however, there are different patterns of eGFR trajectories.

Immediate-start peritoneal dialysis (ISPD) is an effective renal replacement therapy that can prevent central venous catheterization due to its immediate initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after catheter insertion without a break-in period. This study aimed to investigate the effect of ISPD on long-term patient survival. Methods: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, 178 consecutive patients who started PD from August 2005 to March 2023 were enrolled, from whom 144 patients with ISPD were analyzed. PD was initiated without a break-in period within 24 hours of catheter insertion using percutaneous needle-guidewire technique. The primary outcome was patient survival, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with patient survival. Results: The median follow-up period was 4.00 years (interquartile range, 1.23–5.75 years). The mean age of patients was 61.6 ± 13.6 years; 58 patients (40.3%) were male and 93 patients (64.6%) were diabetic. Overall patient survival rates at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years were 98.5%, 93.5%, 92.1%, and 65.6%, respectively. The technique survival rates at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years were 88.1%, 74.9%, 63.2%, and 40.2%, respectively. The peritonitis-free survival rates at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years were 92.3%, 76.0%, 59.4%, and 28.0%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, diabetes was the only factor associated with patient survival and technique survival. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that patient survival and technique survival rates were relatively high in ISPD patients who were catheterized using percutaneous needle-guidewire technique.

Background: Bulky or multiple lymph node (LN) metastases are associated with poor prognosis in cervical cancer, and the size or number of LN metastases is not yet reflected in the staging system and therapeutic strategy. Although the therapeutic effects of surgical resection of bulky LNs before standard treatment have been reported in several retrospective studies, wellplanned randomized clinical studies are lacking. Therefore, the aim of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group (KGOG) 1047/DEBULK trial is to investigate whether the debulking surgery of bulky or multiple LNs prior to concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) improves the survival rate of patients with cervical cancer IIICr diagnosed by imaging tests. Methods The KGOG 1047/DEBULK trial is a phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving patients with bulky or multiple LN metastases in cervical cancer IIICr. This study will include patients with a short-axis diameter of a pelvic or para-aortic LN ≥2 cm or ≥3 LNs with a short-axis diameter ≥1 cm and for whom CCRT is planned. The treatment arms will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either receive CCRT (control arm) or undergo surgical debulking of bulky or multiple LNs before CCRT (experimental arm). CCRT consists of extended-field external beam radiotherapy/pelvic radiotherapy, brachytherapy and LN boost, and weekly chemotherapy with cisplatin (40 mg/m 2 ), 4–6 times administered intravenously.The primary endpoint will be 3-year progression-free survival rate. The secondary endpoints will be 3-year overall survival rate, treatment-related complications, and accuracy of radiological diagnosis of bulky or multiple LNs.

Purpose: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy by identifying subtle patterns and aiding tumor delineation and lymph node assessment. According to our systematic review focusing on convolutional neural networks, AI-driven tumor staging and the prediction of treatment response facilitate tailored treat­ment strategies for patients with rectal cancer. Methods: This paper summarizes the current landscape of AI in the imaging field of rectal cancer, emphasizing the performance reporting design based on the quality of the dataset, model performance, and external validation. Results: AI-driven tumor segmentation has demonstrated promising results using various convolutional neural network models. AI-based predictions of staging and treatment response have exhibited potential as auxiliary tools for personalized treatment strategies. Some studies have indicated superior performance than conventional models in predicting microsatellite instability and KRAS status, offer­ing noninvasive and cost-effective alternatives for identifying genetic mutations. Conclusion Image-based AI studies for rectal can­cer have shown acceptable diagnostic performance but face several challenges, including limited dataset sizes with standardized data, the need for multicenter studies, and the absence of oncologic relevance and external validation for clinical implantation. Overcoming these pitfalls and hurdles is essential for the feasible integration of AI models in clinical settings for rectal cancer, warranting further research.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.