Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

Conversion therapy is a treatment strategy that shifts from palliative systemic therapy to curative surgical treatment for primary and/or metastatic stage IV gastric cancer (GC).To address its clinical statements, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association aims to present a consensus on conversion therapy among experts attending KINGCA WEEK 2024. The KINGCA Scientific Committee and Development Working Group for Korean Practice Guidelines prepared preformulated topics and 9 clinical statements for conversion therapy.The Delphi method was applied to a panel of 17 experts for consensus and opinions. The final comments were announced after the statement presentation and discussed during the consensus meeting session of KINGCA WEEK 2024. Most experts agreed that conversion herapy provides a survival benefit for selected patients who respond to systemic therapy and undergo R0 resection (88.3%). Patients with limited metastases were considered good candidates (94.2%). The optimal timing was based on the response to systemic therapy (70.6%). The regimen was recommended to be individualized (100%) and the duration to be at least 6 months (88.3%). A minimally invasive approach (82.3%) and D2 lymph node dissection (82.4%) were considered for surgery. However, resection for metastases with a complete clinical response after systemic therapy was not advocated (41.2%). All experts agreed on the need for large-scale randomized-controlled trials for further evidence (100%).Recent advancements in treatment may facilitate radical surgery for patients with stage IV GC. Further evidence is warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of conversion therapy.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.