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: This study aims to evaluate the effect of treatment for great saphenous vein incompetence with a fourth-generation 1940 nm laser with radial fiber and catheter directed foam sclerotherapy (CDFS) without a tumescent simultaneously. The procedure was termed laser assisted sclerotherapy (LAST). It is a kind of thermochemical ablation. Methods: From January 1 to June 30, 2023, 86 GSV cases from 50 patients who underwent LAST at Cheongmac hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study. Endogenous laser ablation (EVLA) was performed in the order of accessary vein, tributaries and truncal vein and then followed by CDFS which was performed with a 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS) mixed with CO 2 gas at a ratio of 1:4. The degree of pain was measured after procedure at 2 hours after the procedure. Follow-up was conducted at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months. Results: Three of the 86 GSV observed for >6 months showed mild reflux. According to size and number of ablated vessels, various energy level was needed. Three percent STS was used 4.5±0.4 cc and operation time per GSV was about 8±2 minutes. The VAS score was 2.5±0.6 at 2 hours after surgery. The closure rate was 100% at 6 months. Symptoms improved after 6 months in all patients (6.2±1.2 to 0.9±0.2). Conclusion LAST showed a good closure rate in the early midterm follow up period. Ablation was possible with less energy compared with EVLA and the pain index was lower at the second hour after procedure.

Purpose: In general, bile is normally sterile. However, there are reports bactibilia may occur in certain instances, though the causal factors are unclear. We analyzed possible preoperative predictors of bactibilia upon cholecystectomy. Methods: Bile samples were collected during cholecystectomies from November 2018 to November 2019. A total of 428 open or laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared between the culture-positive and culture-negative groups. Results: One hundred fifty-seven patients (36.7%) were culture-positive. Gram-negative bacteria (95 [61.0%]) were more common. Escherichia coli (38 [40.0%]) and Enterobacter (22 [23.2%]) were the most common species. In univariate analysis, age of ≥70 years (P < 0.001), male sex (P < 0.001), high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status grades (P = 0.001), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.002), jaundice (P = 0.007), high Tokyo Guideline grades (P = 0.008), percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD; P < 0.001), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP; P < 0.001) were identified as a risk factors for bactibilia. In multivariate analysis, age of ≥70 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.874; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.769–4.670; P = 0.001), ERCP (HR, 9.001; 95% CI, 4.833–16.75; P < 0.001), and PTGBD (HR, 2.866; 95% CI, 1.440–4.901; P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for bactibilia. Conclusion Among patients who underwent cholecystectomy, those who were elderly, symptomatic, and underwent preoperative drainage were more likely to have bactibilia. In such cases, surgeons should take care to prevent bile leakage during surgery and consider administering appropriate antibiotics.

Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Korea, need remains for pangenotypic regimens that can be used in the presence of hepatic impairment, comorbidities, or prior treatment failure. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir for 12 weeks in HCV-infected Korean adults. Methods: This Phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study included 2 cohorts. In Cohort 1, participants with HCV genotype 1 or 2 and who were treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with interferon-based treatments, received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir 400/100 mg/day. In Cohort 2, HCV genotype 1 infected individuals who previously received an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen ≥ 4 weeks received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir 400/100/100 mg/day. Decompensated cirrhosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary endpoint was SVR12, defined as HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL 12 weeks following treatment. Results: Of 53 participants receiving sofosbuvir–velpatasvir, 52 (98.1%) achieved SVR12. The single participant who did not achieve SVR12 experienced an asymptomatic Grade 3 ASL/ALT elevation on day 15 and discontinued treatment. The event resolved without intervention. All 33 participants (100%) treated with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir achieved SVR 12. Overall, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir were safe and well tolerated. Three participants (5.6%) in Cohort 1 and 1 participant (3.0%) in Cohort 2 had serious adverse events, but none were considered treatment-related. No deaths or grade 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir or sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir was safe and resulted in high SVR12 rates in Korean HCV patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the use of active surgical co-management (SCM) by medical hospitalists for urology inpatient care. Materials and Methods: Since March 2019, a hospitalist-SCM program was implemented at a tertiary-care medical center, and a retrospective cohort study was conducted among co-managed urology inpatients. We assessed the clinical outcomes of urology inpatients who received SCM and compared passive SCM (co-management of patients by hospitalists only on request; March 2019 to June 2020) with active SCM (co-management of patients based on active screening by hospitalists; July 2020 to October 2021). We also evaluated the perceptions of patients who received SCM toward inpatient care quality, safety, and subjective satisfaction with inpatient care at discharge or when transferred to other wards. Results: We assessed 525 patients. Compared with the passive SCM group (n=205), patients in the active SCM group (n=320) required co-management for a significantly shorter duration (p=0.012) and tended to have a shorter length of stay at the urology ward (p=0.062) and less frequent unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge (p=0.095) while triggering significantly fewer events of rapid response team activation (p=0.002). No differences were found in the proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality rates, or inpatient care questionnaire scores. Conclusion Active surveillance and co-management of urology inpatients by medical hospitalists can improve the quality and efficacy of inpatient care without compromising subjective inpatient satisfaction.

Background: In 2015, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group published consensus guidelines for treating atopic dermatitis (AD). Objective: We aimed to provide updated consensus recommendations for systemic treatment of AD in South Korea based on recent evidence and experience. Methods: We compiled a database of references from relevant systematic reviews and guidelines on the systemic management of AD. Evidence for each statement was graded and classified based on thestrength of the recommendation. Forty-two council members from the KADA participated in three rounds of voting to establish a consensus on expert recommendations. Results: We do not recommend long-term treatment with systemic steroids forpatients with moderate-to-severe AD due to the risk of adverse effects. We recommend treatment with cyclosporine or dupilumab and selective treatment with methotrexate or azathioprine for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We suggest treatment with antihistamines as an option for alleviating clinical symptoms of AD. We recommend selective treatment with narrowband ultraviolet B for patients with chronic moderate-to-severe AD. We do not recommend treatment with oral antibiotics for patients with moderate-to-severe AD but who have no signs of infection. We did not reach a consensus on recommendations for treatment with allergen-specific immunotherapy, probiotics, evening primrose oil, orvitamin D for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We also recommend educational interventions and counselling for patients with AD and caregivers to improve the treatment success rate. Conclusion We look forward to implementing a new and updated consensus of systemic therapy in controlling patients with moderate-to-severe AD.

Autoimmune epilepsy is a newly emerging area of epilepsy. The concept of “autoimmune” as an etiology has recently been revisited thanks to advances in autoimmune encephalitis and precision medicine with immunotherapies. Autoimmune epilepsy presents with specific clinical manifestations, and various diagnostic approaches including cerebrospinal fluid analysis, neuroimaging, and autoantibody tests are essential for its differential diagnosis. The diagnosis is often indeterminate despite performing a thorough evaluation, and therefore empirical immunotherapy may be applied according to the judgment of the clinician. Autoimmune epilepsy often manifests as new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE). A patient classified as NORSE should receive empirical immunotherapy as soon as possible. On the other hand, a morecautious, stepwise approach is recommended for autoimmune epilepsy that presents with episodic events. The type of autoimmune epilepsy is also an important factor to consider when choosing from among various immunotherapy options. Clinicians should additionally take the characteristics of antiepileptic drugs into account when using them as an adjuvant therapy. This expert opinion discusses the diagnostic and treatment approaches for autoimmune epilepsy from a practical point of view.

Background/Aims: The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), based on transient elastography, is widely used for noninvasive assessment of the degree of hepatic steatosis (HS). We investigated the correlation of the degree HS between CAP and ultrasound (US) in patients with HS. Methods: In total, 986 patients with US-based HS who underwent transient elastography within 1 month were evaluated. The US-based grade of HS was categorized as mild (grade 1), moderate (grade 2), or severe (grade 3). Results: The CAP was significantly correlated with the US-based grade of HS (r = 0.458, p < 0.001). The median CAP value of each US-based HS grade showed a positive correlation with grade (271.1, 303.7, and 326.7 dB/m for grades 1, 2, and 3). In a multivariate analysis, the US-based HS grade, body mass index, serum albumin, alanine aminotransferase, and total cholesterol, and liver stiffness were all significantly correlated with the CAP value (all p < 0.05). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for grade 2 to 3 and grade 3 HS were 0.749 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.714 to 0.784) and 0.738 (95% CI, 0.704 to 0.772). The optimal cut-off CAP values to maximize the sum of the sensitivity and specificity for grade 2 to 3 and grade 3 HS were 284.5 dB/m (sensitivity 78.6%, specificity 61.7%) and 298.5 dB/m (sensitivity 84.6%, specificity 55.6%). Conclusions The correlation of the degree of HS between CAP and US was significantly high in patients with HS, and the optimal cut-off CAP values for grade 2 to 3 and grade 3 HS were 284.5 and 298.5 dB/m.