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: This study investigated the real-world efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in Korean adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), whose insulin treatment was switched to IDegAsp. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study comprising two 26-week treatment periods, before and after switching to IDegAsp, respectively. Korean adults with uncontrolled T2DM treated with basal or premix insulin (±oral antidiabetic drugs) were enrolled. The primary objective was to compare the degree of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change in each 26-week observation period. The analyses included changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, proportion of participants achieving HbA1c <7.0%, hypoglycemic events, and total daily insulin dose (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04656106). Results: In total, 196 adults (mean age, 65.95 years; mean T2DM duration, 18.99 years) were analyzed. The change in both HbA1c and FPG were significantly different between the pre-switching and the post-switching period (0.28% vs. –0.51%, P<0.001; 5.21 mg/dL vs. –23.10 mg/dL, P=0.005), respectively. After switching, the rate of achieving HbA1c <7.0% was significantly improved (5.10% at baseline vs. 11.22% with IDegAsp, P=0.012). No significant differences (before vs. after switching) were observed in body weight change, and total daily insulin dose. The rates of overall and severe hypoglycemia were similar in the two periods. Conclusion In real-world clinical practice in Korea, the change of insulin regimen to IDegAsp was associated with an improvement in glycemic control without increase of hypoglycemia, supporting the use of IDegAsp for patients with T2DM uncontrolled with basal or premix insulin.

BACKGROUND: Several factors contribute to differences in Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype distribution. We investigated the serotype distribution and antimicrobial resistance of S. pneumoniae isolated between 2014 and 2016 in Korea. METHODS: We collected a total of 1,855 S. pneumoniae isolates from 44 hospitals between May 2014 and May 2016, and analyzed the serotypes by sequential multiplex PCR. We investigated the distribution of each serotype by patient age, source of the clinical specimen, and antimicrobial resistance pattern. RESULTS: The most common serotypes were 11A (10.1%), followed by 19A (8.8%), 3 (8.5%), 34 (8.1%), 23A (7.3%), and 35B (6.2%). The major invasive serotypes were 3 (12.6%), 19A (7.8%), 34 (7.8%), 10A (6.8%), and 11A (6.8%). Serotypes 10A, 15B, 19A, and 12F were more common in patients ≤5 years old, while serotype 3 was more common in patients ≥65 years old compared with the other age groups. The coverage rates of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)7, PCV10, PCV13, and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine 23 were 11.8%, 12.12%, 33.3%, and 53.6%, respectively. Of the 1,855 isolates, 857 (46.2%) were multi-drug resistant (MDR), with serotypes 11A and 19A predominant among the MDR strains. The resistance rates against penicillin, cefotaxime, and levofloxacin were 22.8%, 12.5%, and 9.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant changes in the major S. pneumoniae serotypes in the community. Non-PCV13 serotypes increased in patients ≤5 years old following the introduction of national immunization programs with the 10- and 13-polyvalent vaccines.
Cefotaxime ; Humans ; Immunization Programs ; Korea ; Levofloxacin ; Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Penicillins ; Pneumococcal Vaccines ; Pneumonia ; Serogroup ; Streptococcus pneumoniae ; Streptococcus ; Vaccines

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The adoption of colonoscopy as a primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening technique has been argued for in Korea, without evidence of patient preferences. This study aimed to investigate patients’ preferences for the primary CRC screening test for the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP). METHODS: Between June and August 2016, 414 individuals aged ≥50 years who participated in the NCSP were prospectively invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their preferences for the primary CRC screening test and the reasons for their selection. RESULTS: Among the 396 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 124 individuals (31.3%) preferred the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas 272 individuals (68.7%) preferred colonoscopy. Elderly participants preferred the FIT (p < 0.001), whereas participants with a higher education level (p=0.030), a higher income level (p=0.009), or individuals with a family member (p=0.028) or acquaintance (p=0.013) with a history of CRC preferred colonoscopy. Only 12.9% of participants had a bad experience with a previous FIT; however, 39.3% of participants had a bad experience with a previous colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy was preferred to FIT in a 2.2:1 ratio as the primary CRC screening test for the NCSP. Patients’ preference for colonoscopy should be considered for the NCSP in Korea.
Aged ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms* ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Education ; Humans ; Korea* ; Mass Screening* ; Patient Preference ; Prospective Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Oxidative stress plays an important role in the pathogenesis and progression of diabetic complications and antagonists of renin-angiotensin system and amlodipine have been reported previously to reduce oxidative stress. In this study, we compared the changes in oxidative stress markers after valsartan and amlodipine treatment in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension and compared the changes in metabolic parameters. METHODS: Type 2 diabetic subjects with hypertension 30 to 80 years of age who were not taking antihypertensive drugs were randomized into either valsartan (n = 33) or amlodipine (n = 35) groups and treated for 24 weeks. We measured serum nitrotyrosine levels as an oxidative stress marker. Metabolic parameters including serum glucose, insulin, lipid profile, and urine albumin and creatinine were also measured. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of valsartan or amlodipine treatment, systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased, with no significant difference between the groups. Both groups showed a decrease in serum nitrotyrosine (7.74 ± 7.30 nmol/L vs. 3.95 ± 4.07 nmol/L in the valsartan group and 8.37 ± 8.75 nmol/L vs. 2.68 ± 2.23 nmol/L in the amlodipine group) with no significant difference between the groups. Other parameters including glucose, lipid profile, albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance showed no significant differences before and after treatment in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan and amlodipine reduced the oxidative stress marker in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension.
Amlodipine* ; Antihypertensive Agents ; Blood Glucose ; Blood Pressure ; Creatinine ; Diabetes Complications ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 ; Glucose ; Homeostasis ; Humans ; Hypertension* ; Insulin ; Insulin Resistance ; Oxidative Stress* ; Renin-Angiotensin System ; Valsartan*

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Oxidative stress plays an important role in the pathogenesis and progression of diabetic complications and antagonists of renin-angiotensin system and amlodipine have been reported previously to reduce oxidative stress. In this study, we compared the changes in oxidative stress markers after valsartan and amlodipine treatment in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension and compared the changes in metabolic parameters. METHODS: Type 2 diabetic subjects with hypertension 30 to 80 years of age who were not taking antihypertensive drugs were randomized into either valsartan (n = 33) or amlodipine (n = 35) groups and treated for 24 weeks. We measured serum nitrotyrosine levels as an oxidative stress marker. Metabolic parameters including serum glucose, insulin, lipid profile, and urine albumin and creatinine were also measured. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of valsartan or amlodipine treatment, systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased, with no significant difference between the groups. Both groups showed a decrease in serum nitrotyrosine (7.74 ± 7.30 nmol/L vs. 3.95 ± 4.07 nmol/L in the valsartan group and 8.37 ± 8.75 nmol/L vs. 2.68 ± 2.23 nmol/L in the amlodipine group) with no significant difference between the groups. Other parameters including glucose, lipid profile, albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance showed no significant differences before and after treatment in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan and amlodipine reduced the oxidative stress marker in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension.
Amlodipine* ; Antihypertensive Agents ; Blood Glucose ; Blood Pressure ; Creatinine ; Diabetes Complications ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 ; Glucose ; Homeostasis ; Humans ; Hypertension* ; Insulin ; Insulin Resistance ; Oxidative Stress* ; Renin-Angiotensin System ; Valsartan*

PURPOSE: Appropriate animal models of atherosclerotic plaque are crucial to investigating the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis, as well as for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of vascular devices. We aimed to develop a novel animal model that would be suitable for the study of advanced atherosclerotic lesions in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Atherosclerotic plaque was induced in 24 iliac arteries from 12 rabbits by combining a high cholesterol diet, endothelial denudation, and injection into the vessel wall with either saline (n=5), olive oil (n=6), or inflammatory proteins [n=13, high-mobility group protein B1 (HMGB1) n=8 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α n=5] using a Cricket™ Micro-infusion catheter. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed to detect plaque characteristics after 4 weeks, and all tissues were harvested for histological evaluation. RESULTS: Advanced plaque was more frequently observed in the group injected with inflammatory proteins. Macrophage infiltration was present to a higher degree in the HMGB1 and TNF-α groups, compared to the oil or saline group (82.1±5.1% and 94.6±2.2% compared to 49.6±14.0% and 46.5±9.6%, p-value<0.001), using RAM11 antibody staining. On OCT, lipid rich plaques were more frequently detected in the inflammatory protein group [saline group: 2/5 (40%), oil group: 3/5 (50%), HMGB1 group: 6/8 (75%), and TNF-α group: 5/5 (100%)]. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that this rabbit model of atherosclerotic lesion formation via direct injection of pro-inflammatory proteins into the vessel wall is useful for in vivo studies investigating atherosclerosis.
Animals ; Cholesterol, Dietary/administration & dosage ; *Disease Models, Animal ; Endothelium/surgery ; HMGB1 Protein/*adverse effects ; Iliac Artery/diagnostic imaging/pathology/surgery ; Injections, Intra-Arterial ; Macrophages ; Male ; Olive Oil/adverse effects ; Plaque, Atherosclerotic/*chemically induced/diagnostic imaging/pathology ; Rabbits ; Sodium Chloride/adverse effects ; Tomography, Optical Coherence ; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/*adverse effects

PURPOSE: Infliximab is currently used for the treatment of active Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of infliximab therapy and to determine the predictors of response in Korean patients with CD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 317 patients who received at least one infliximab infusion for active luminal CD (n=198) and fistulizing CD (n=86) or both (n=33) were reviewed retrospectively in 29 Korean referral centers. Clinical outcomes of induction and maintenance therapy with infliximab, predictors of response, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: In patients with luminal CD, the rates of clinical response and remission at week 14 were 89.2% and 60.0%, respectively. Male gender and isolated colonic disease were associated with higher remission rates at week 14. In week-14 responders, the probabilities of sustained response and remission were 96.2% and 93.3% at week 30 and 88.0% and 77.0% at week 54, respectively. In patients with fistulizing CD, clinical response and remission were observed in 85.0% and 56.2% of patients, respectively, at week 14. In week-14 responders, the probabilities of sustained response and remission were 94.0% and 97.1%, respectively, at both week 30 and week 54. Thirty-nine patients (12.3%) experienced adverse events related to infliximab. Serious adverse events developed in 19 (6.0%) patients including seven cases of active pulmonary tuberculosis. CONCLUSION: Infliximab induction and maintenance therapy are effective and well tolerable in Korean patients with luminal and fistulizing CD. However, clinicians must be aware of the risk of rare yet critical adverse events.
Colonic Diseases ; Crohn Disease* ; Humans ; Infliximab* ; Male ; Phenobarbital ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies ; Tuberculosis ; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary