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: To evaluate the degree of deformation in patients with ankle osteoarthritis (OA), it is essential to measure the threedimensional (3D), in other words, stereoscopic alignment of the ankle, subtalar, and foot arches. Generally, measurement of radiological parameters use two-dimensional (2D) anteroposterior and lateral radiographs in a weight-bearing state; however, computeraided 3D analysis (Disior) using weight-bearing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has recently been introduced. Methods: In this study, we compared the 2D human radiographic method with a stereoscopic image in patients with ankle arthritis. We enrolled 57 patients diagnosed with OA (28 left and 29 right) and obtained both standing radiographs and weight-bearing CBCT. Patients were divided by the Takakura stage. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each result was confirmed. Results: On the ICC between 2D radiographs and 3D analysis, the tibiotalar surface angle and lateral talo-1st metatarsal angle showed a good ICC grade (> 0.6), while other parameters did not have significant ICC results. Three-dimension was superior to radiographs in terms of statistical significance. Conclusions We demonstrated that 2D and stereoscopic images are useful for the diagnosis of OA. Our study also confirmed that the radiographic features affected by ankle OA varied. However, according to the results, the typical radiography is not sufficient to diagnose and determine a treatment plan for ankle OA. Therefore, the method of using 3D images should be considered.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Purpose: We aimed to identify factors influencing smoking cessation success among cancer patients registered in an inpatient smoking cessation program at a single cancer center. Materials and Methods: The electronic medical records of enrolled patients with solid cancer were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated factors associated with 6-month smoking cessation. Results: A total of 458 patients with cancer were included in this study. Their mean age was 62.9±10.3 years, and 56.3% of the participants had lung cancer. 193 (42.1%) had not yet begun their main treatment. The mean number of counseling sessions for the participants was 8.4±3.5, and 46 (10.0%) patients were prescribed smoking cessation medications. The 6-month smoking cessation success rate was 48.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that younger age (<65 years), cohabited status, early stage, and the number of counseling sessions were statistically significant factors affecting 6-month smoking cessation success (p<0.05). Initiation of a cessation program before cancer treatment was significantly associated with cessation success (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–2.70; p=0.040). Conclusion Smoking cessation intervention must be considered when establishing a treatment plan immediately after a cancer diagnosis among smokers.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused the death of thousands of patients worldwide. Although age is known to be a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients, critical illness or death is occurring even in the younger age group as the epidemic spreads. In early 2022, omicron became the dominant variant of the COVID-19 virus in South Korea, and the epidemic proceeded on a large scale. Accordingly, this study aimed to determine whether young adults (aged ≤ 50 years) with critical COVID-19 infection during the omicron period had different characteristics from older patients and to determine the risk factors for mortality in this specific age group. Methods: We evaluated 213 critical adult patients (high flow nasal cannula or higher respiratory support) hospitalized for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in nine hospitals in South Korea between February 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022. Demographic characteristics, including body mass index (BMI) and vaccination status; underlying diseases; clinical features and laboratory findings; clinical course; treatment received; and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (EMRs) and analyzed according to age and mortality. Results: Overall, 71 critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were enrolled, and 142 critically ill patients aged over 50 years were selected through 1:2 matching based on the date of diagnosis. The most frequent underlying diseases among those aged ≤ 50 years were diabetes and hypertension, and all 14 patients who died had either a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 or an underlying disease. The total case fatality rate among severe patients (S-CFR) was 31.0%, and the S-CFR differed according to age and was higher than that during the delta period. The S-CFR was 19.7% for those aged ≤ 50 years, 36.6% for those aged > 50 years, and 38.1% for those aged ≥ 65 years. In multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.084; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.043–1.127), initial low-density lipoprotein > 600 IU/L (OR, 4.782; 95% CI, 1.584–14.434), initial C-reactive protein > 8 mg/dL (OR, 2.940; 95% CI, 1.042–8.293), highest aspartate aminotransferase > 200 IU/L (OR, 12.931; 95% CI, 1.691–98.908), and mechanical ventilation implementation (OR, 3.671; 95% CI, 1.294–10.420) were significant independent predictors of mortality in critical COVID-19 patients during the omicron wave. A similar pattern was shown when analyzing the data by age group, but most had no statistical significance owing to the small number of deaths in the young critical group. Although the vaccination completion rate of all the patients (31.0%) was higher than that in the delta wave period (13.6%), it was still lower than that of the general population. Further, only 15 (21.1%) critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were fully vaccinated. Overall, the severity of hospitalized critical patients was significantly higher than that in the delta period, indicating that it was difficult to find common risk factors in the two periods only with a simple comparison. Conclusion Overall, the S-CFR of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the omicron period was higher than that in the delta period, especially in those aged ≤ 50 years. All of the patients who died had an underlying disease or obesity. In the same population, the vaccination rate was very low compared to that in the delta wave, indicating that non-vaccination significantly affected the progression to critical illness. Notably, there was a lack of prescription for Paxlovid for these patients although they satisfied the prescription criteria. Early diagnosis and active initial treatment was necessary, along with the proven methods of vaccination and personal hygiene. Further studies are needed to determine how each variant affects critically ill patients.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often accompanied by secondary infections, such as invasive aspergillosis. In this study, risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and their clinical outcomes were evaluated. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included critically ill COVID-19 patients from July 2020 through March 2021. Critically ill patients were defined as patients requiring high-flow respiratory support or mechanical ventilation. CAPA was defined based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus criteria. Factors associated with CAPA were analyzed, and their clinical outcomes were adjusted by a propensity score-matched model. Results: Among 187 eligible patients, 17 (9.1%) developed CAPA, which is equal to 33.10 per 10,000 patient-days. Sixteen patients received voriconazole-based antifungal treatment. In addition, 82.4% and 53.5% of patients with CAPA and without CAPA, respectively, received early high-dose corticosteroids (P = 0.022). In multivariable analysis, initial 10-day cumulative steroid dose > 60 mg of dexamethasone or dexamethasone equivalent dose) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–13.79) and chronic pulmonary disease (adjusted OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.26–14.02) were independently associated with CAPA. Tendencies of higher 90-day overall mortality (54.3% vs. 35.2%, P= 0.346) and lower respiratory support-free rate were observed in patients with CAPA (76.3% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.089). Conclusion Our study showed that the dose of corticosteroid use might be a risk factor for CAPA development and the possibility of CAPA contributing to adverse outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Background/Aims: The gut microbiota regulates intestinal immune homeostasis through host-microbiota interactions. Multiple factors affect the gut microbiota, including age, sex, diet, and use of drugs. In addition, information on gut microbiota differs depending on the samples.The aim of this study is to investigate whether changes in cecal microbiota depend on aging. Methods: Gut microbiota in cecal contents of 6-, 31-, and 74-week-old and 2-year-old male Fischer-344 rats (corresponding to 5-, 30-, 60-, and 80-year-old humans in terms of age) were analyzed using 16S ribosomal RNA metagenome sequencing and phylogenetic investigation of communities by reconstruction of unobserved states (PICRUSt) based on the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes orthology.Moreover, short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) level in cecum and inflammation related factors were measured using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Results: Alpha and beta diversity did not change significantly with age. At the family level, Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae, which produce SCFAs, showed significant change in 31-week-old rats: Lachnospiraceae significantly increased at 31 weeks of age, compared to other age groups, while Ruminococcaceae decreased. Butyrate levels in cecum were significantly increased in 31-week-old rats, and the expression of inflammation related genes was increased followed aging. Especially, EU622775_s and EU622773_s, which were highly abundance species in 31-week-old rats, showed significant relationship with butyrate concentration. Enzymes required for producing butyrate—acetyl-CoA transferase, butyryl-CoA dehydrogenase, and butyrate kinase—were not predicted by PICRUSt. Conclusions Major bacterial taxa in the cecal lumen, such as Lachnospiraceae, well-known SCFAs-producing family, changed in 31-week-old rats.Moreover, unknown species EU622775_s and EU622773_s showed strong association with cecal butyrate level at 31 weeks of age.