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.

Objective: Primary frozen shoulder causes significant pain and progressively restricts shoulder movements. Diagnosis is made clinically based on patient history and physical examination. Management is mainly non-invasive owing to its self-limiting clinical course. However, clinical practice guidelines for frozen shoulder have not yet been developed in Korea. The developed guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of frozen shoulder. Methods: A guideline development committee reviewed the literature from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KMbase). Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework, the committee formulated two backgrounds and 16 key questions to address common clinical concerns. Recommendations were made using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia significantly increase the risk of developing a frozen shoulder. Although frozen shoulder is often self-limiting, some patients may experience long-term functional disabilities. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging should be used as adjunctive tools alongside clinical diagnosis, and rather than as independent diagnostic methods. Noninvasive approaches, such as medications, physical modalities, exercises, electrical stimulation, and manual therapy, may reduce pain and improve shoulder function. Other noninvasive interventions have limited evidence, and their application should be based on clinical judgment. Intra-articular steroid injections are recommended for treatment, and physiotherapy or hydrodilation with steroid injections can also be beneficial. Conclusion These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary frozen shoulder.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most prevalent inflammatory skin condition, with approximately 80% of cases originating in childhood and some emerging in adulthood. In South Korea, the estimated prevalence of AD ranges between 10% and 20% in children and 1% and 3% in adults. Severe/recalcitrant AD manifests as a chronic, relapsing skin disorder, persisting with uncontrolled symptoms even after topical steroid treatment. Corticosteroids and systemic immunosuppression, conventionally the standard care for difficult-to-treat diseases, cause numerous undesirable side effects. When AD persists despite topical steroid application, systemic therapies like cyclosporine or systemic steroids become the second treatment strategy. The desire for targeted treatments, along with an enhanced understanding of AD’s pathophysiology, has spurred novel therapeutic development. Recent advances introduce novel systemic options, such as biological agents and small-molecule therapy, tailored to treat severe or recalcitrant AD. Notably, dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin 4 and 13, marked a transformative breakthrough upon gaining approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, leading to a paradigm shift in the systemic treatment of AD. Furthermore, both dupilumab and Janus kinase inhibitors, including baricitinib, abrocitinib, and tofacitinib, now approved by the Korean FDA, have established their applicability in clinical practice. These innovative therapeutic agents have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes, effectively addressing moderate to severe AD with fewer side reactions than those associated with previous systemic immunosuppressants. This review summarizes the latest advancements and evidence regarding systemic treatments for AD, including newly approved drugs in Korea.

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are on hemodialysis (HD) have reduced vascular com‑ pliance and are likely to develop heart failure (HF). In this study, we estimated the prevalence of HF pre- and post-HD in ESRD using the current guidelines. Methods: We prospectively investigated HF in ESRD patients on HD using echocardiography pre- and post-HD. We used the structural and functional abnormality criteria of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Results: A total of 54 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 62.6 years, and 40.1% were male. Forty-five patients (83.3%) had hypertension, 28 (51.9%) had diabetes, and 20 (37.0%) had ischemic heart disease. The mean N-terminalpro brain natriuretic peptide BNP (NT-proBNP) level was 12,388.8 ± 2,592.2 pg/dL. The mean ideal body weight was 59.3 kg, mean hemodialysis time was 237.4 min, and mean real filtration was 2.8 kg. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 62.4%, and mean left ventricular end-diastolic diameter was 52.0 mm in pre-HD. Post-HD echocardiography showed significantly lower left atrial volume index (33.3 ± 15.9 vs. 40.6 ± 17.1, p = 0.030), tricuspid regurgitation jet V (2.5 ± 0.4 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4 m/s, p < 0.001), and right ventricular systolic pressure (32.1 ± 10.3 vs. 38.4 ± 11.6, p = 0.005) compared with pre-HD. There were no differences in LVEF, E/E′ ratio, or left ventricular global longitudinal strain. A total of 88.9% of pre-HD patients and 66.7% of post-HD patients had either structural or functional abnor‑ malities in echocardiographic parameters according to recent HF guidelines (p = 0.007). Conclusions Our data showed that the majority of patients undergoing hemodialysis satisfy the diagnostic criteria for HF according to current HF guidelines. Pre-HD patients had a 22.2% higher incidence in the prevalence of func‑ tional or structural abnormalities as compared with post-HD patients.

Purpose: This study attempted to develop clinical guidelines to help patients use hospice and palliative care (HPC) at an appropriate time after writing physician orders for lifesustaining treatment (POLST) by identifying the characteristics of HPC use of patients with terminal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted to understand the characteristics of HPC use of patients with terminal cancer through decision tree analysis. The participants were 394 terminal cancer patients who were hospitalized at a cancer-specialized hospital in Seoul, South Korea and wrote POLST from January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2021. Results: The predictive model for the characteristics of HPC use showed three main nodes (living together, pain control, and period to death after writing POLST). The decision tree analysis of HPC use by terminal cancer patients showed that the most likely group to use HPC use was terminal cancer patients who had a cohabitant, received pain control, and died 2 months or more after writing a POLST. The probability of HPC usage rate in this group was 87.5%. The next most likely group to use HPC had a cohabitant and received pain control; 64.8% of this group used HPC. Finally, 55.1% of participants who had a cohabitant used HPC, which was a significantly higher proportion than that of participants who did not have a cohabitant (1.7%). Conclusion This study provides meaningful clinical evidence to help make decisions on HPC use more easily at an appropriate time.

Purpose: This study attempted to develop clinical guidelines to help patients use hospice and palliative care (HPC) at an appropriate time after writing physician orders for lifesustaining treatment (POLST) by identifying the characteristics of HPC use of patients with terminal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted to understand the characteristics of HPC use of patients with terminal cancer through decision tree analysis. The participants were 394 terminal cancer patients who were hospitalized at a cancer-specialized hospital in Seoul, South Korea and wrote POLST from January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2021. Results: The predictive model for the characteristics of HPC use showed three main nodes (living together, pain control, and period to death after writing POLST). The decision tree analysis of HPC use by terminal cancer patients showed that the most likely group to use HPC use was terminal cancer patients who had a cohabitant, received pain control, and died 2 months or more after writing a POLST. The probability of HPC usage rate in this group was 87.5%. The next most likely group to use HPC had a cohabitant and received pain control; 64.8% of this group used HPC. Finally, 55.1% of participants who had a cohabitant used HPC, which was a significantly higher proportion than that of participants who did not have a cohabitant (1.7%). Conclusion This study provides meaningful clinical evidence to help make decisions on HPC use more easily at an appropriate time.

A malignancy is a fatal condition that could occur through various mechanisms. Forensic pathologists sometimes find unexpected findings during autopsy and post-mortem (PM) tests. Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The deceased was a 64-year-old man with a medical history of right hemicolectomy due to colon cancer approximately two years earlier. He was found dead at his home. He was admitted to the hospital due to subdural hemorrhage (SDH) two days prior to his demise and was discharged without the permission of the doctor after one day of hospitalization. An autopsy was performed within two days of his death. After gross dissection, the cause and manner of death were assumed to be SDH and unnatural death, respectively. Microscopic examination revealed fresh SDH and dural metastasis of signet-ring cell carcinoma. Furthermore, metastasis was identified in the heart, stomach, and peritoneum. Immunohistochemical examination revealed cancer cells to originate from the colon. After meticulous PM examination, including gross dissection, microscopic examination, PM computed tomography, and PM laboratory tests, the cause and manner of death were determined as SDH and natural death, respectively. This case report highlights the importance of comprehensive PM evaluation for investigating death.

OBJECTIVES: Intracoronary injection of acetylcholine (Ach) has been shown to induce significant coronary artery spasm (CAS) in patients with vasospastic angina. Clinical significance and angiographic characteristics of patients with ischemic electrocardiogram (ECG) changes during the Ach provocation test are not clarified yet. METHODS: A total 4,418 consecutive patients underwent coronary angiography with Ach provocation tests from 2004 to 2012 were enrolled. Ischemic ECG changes were defined as transient ST-segment depression or elevation ( > 1 mm) and T inversion with/without chest pain. Finally, a total 2,293 patients (28.5% of total subjects) proven CAS were enrolled for this study. RESULTS: A total 119 patients (5.2%) showed ECG changes during Ach provocation tests. The baseline clinical and procedural characteristics are well balanced between the two groups. Ischemic ECG change group showed more frequent chest pain, higher incidence of baseline spasm, severe vasospasm, multi-vessel involvement, and more diffuse spasm ( > 30 mm) than those without ischemic ECG changes. At 5 years, the incidences of death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) were higher in the ischemic ECG change group despite of optimal medical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The patients with ischemic ECG changes during Ach provocation tests were associated with more frequent chest pain, baseline spasm, diffuse, severe and multi-vessel spasm than patients without ischemic ECG changes. At 5-years, the incidences of death, MACE and MACCE were higher in the ischemic ECG change group, suggesting more intensive medical therapy with close clinical follow up will be required.
Acetylcholine ; Chest Pain ; Coronary Angiography ; Coronary Vessels ; Depression ; Electrocardiography ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Incidence ; Spasm