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 and Objectives: Inherited arrhythmia (IA) is a more common cause of sudden cardiac death in Asian population, but little is known about the genetic background of Asian IA probands. We aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and analyze the genetic underpinnings of IA in a Korean cohort. Methods: This study was conducted in a multicenter cohort of the Korean IA Registry from 2014 to 2017. Genetic testing was performed using a next-generation sequencing panel including 174 causative genes of cardiovascular disease. Results: Among the 265 IA probands, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) and Brugada Syndrome (BrS) was the most prevalent diseases (96 and 95 cases respectively), followed by long QT syndrome (LQTS, n=54). Two-hundred-sixteen probands underwent genetic testing, and 69 probands (31.9%) were detected with genetic variant, with yield of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant as 6.4%. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in genotype positive probands (54.7±11.3 vs. 59.3±9.2%, p=0.005). IVF probands showed highest yield of positive genotype (54.0%), followed by LQTS (23.8%), and BrS (19.5%). Conclusions There were significant differences in clinical characteristics and genetic yields among BrS, LQTS, and IVF. Genetic testing did not provide better yield for BrS and LQTS. On the other hand, in IVF, genetic testing using multiple gene panel might enable the molecular diagnosis of concealed genotype, which may alter future clinical diagnosis and management strategies.

Background/Aims: To investigate whether visceral fat area (VFA) measured by bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) was associated with metabolic syndrome in subjects with and without obesity. Methods: A total 23,202 participants who underwent medical check-ups were assessed. Participants were stratified by body mass index (BMI) and VFA. We evaluated six different groups for metabolic syndrome: Group 1 (normal weight and low VFA), Group 2 (normal weight and high VFA), Group 3 (overweight and low VFA), Group 4 (overweight and high VFA), Group 5 (obesity and low VFA), and Group 6 (obesity and high VFA). Results: Metabolic syndrome traits and metabolic syndrome were significantly more prevalent in the high-VFA (≥ 100 cm2 ) subgroup in each BMI group. Adjusted logistic regression analyses revealed that the odds ratio for metabolic syndrome compared with Group 1 was the highest in Group 6 (24.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21.77 to 27.64). Notably, the odds ratio of Group 2 was higher than that of Group 3 (2.92; 95% CI, 2.30 to 3.69 vs. 2.57; 95% CI, 2.23 to 2.97). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that the combination of BMI assessment and VFA determination by BIA may be a useful method for predicting the risk of metabolic syndrome. The VFA by BIA may be a useful target for interventions to improve metabolic syndrome.

Purpose: To investigate the use of second AREDS2 formula in patients with intermediate or advanced age-related macular degeneration. Methods: A prospective survey was conducted between December 2019 and July 2020. The questionnaire consisted of 24 questions on demographics, disease perception, and formula intake. Results: The survey included 100 patients (males, 56%; age [>60 years], 89%). We found that 66%, 84%, and 93% of patients had a good understanding of their disease, had stopped smoking, and were aware of the need for antioxidant supplements; 58% of patients were aware of the supplement they were prescribed, and 63.8% (37% of total) were using the AREDS2 formula. Only 8% of patients had knowledge regarding the supplement ingredients, and 91% consumed the supplement daily. Patients with long disease duration used supplements less frequently (p < 0.05). Older patients and those with a low education level had a limited perception of the disease (p < 0.05). Conclusions In this prospective survey, some patients consumed supplements other than the AREDS2 formula. Further studies are required to determine ways to increase the use of the AREDS2 formula.

Purpose: To compare long-term disease-free survival (DFS) between patients receiving tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for gastric cancer (GC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective multicenter observational study enrolled 983 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy with consecutive AC with S-1 or CAPOX for stage II or III GC at 27 hospitals in Korea between February 2012 and December 2013. We conducted propensity score matching to reduce selection bias. Long-term oncologic outcomes, including DFS rate over 5 years (over-5yr DFS), were analyzed postoperatively. Results: The median and longest follow-up period were 59.0 and 87.6 months, respectively. DFS rate did not differ between patients who received S-1 and CAPOX for pathologic stage II (P=0.677) and stage III (P=0.899) GC. Moreover, hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence did not differ significantly between S-1 and CAPOX (reference) in stage II (HR, 1.846; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.693–4.919; P=0.220) and stage III (HR, 0.942; 95% CI, 0.664–1.337; P=0.738) GC. After adjustment for significance in multivariate analysis, pT (4 vs. 1) (HR, 11.667; 95% CI, 1.595–85.351; P=0.016), pN stage (0 vs. 3) (HR, 2.788; 95% CI, 1.502–5.174; P=0.001), and completion of planned chemotherapy (HR, 2.213; 95% CI, 1.618–3.028; P<0.001) were determined as independent prognostic factors for DFS. Conclusions S-1 and CAPOX AC regimens did not show significant difference in over-5yr DFS after curative gastrectomy in patients with stage II or III GC. The pT, pN stage, and completion of planned chemotherapy were prognostic factors for GC recurrence.

PURPOSE: To investigate the current status of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in Korea and the difference in efficacy of AC administered by surgical and medical oncologists in patients with stage II or III gastric cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study among 1,049 patients who underwent curative resection and received AC for stage II and III gastric cancers between February 2012 and December 2013 at 29 tertiary referral university hospitals in Korea. To minimize the influence of potential confounders on selection bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was used based on binary logistic regression analysis. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared between patients who received AC administered by medical oncologists or surgical oncologists. RESULTS: Between February 2012 and December 2013 in Korea, the most commonly prescribed AC by medical oncologists was tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1, 47.72%), followed by capecitabine with oxaliplatin (XELOX, 16.33%). After performing PSM, surgical oncologists (82.74%) completed AC as planned more often than medical oncologists (75.9%), with statistical significance (P=0.036). No difference in the 3-year DFS rates of stage II (P=0.567) or stage III (P=0.545) gastric cancer was found between the medical and surgical oncologist groups. CONCLUSIONS: S-1 monotherapy and XELOX are a main stay of AC, regardless of whether the prescribing physician is a medical or surgical oncologist. The better compliance with AC by surgical oncologists is a valid reason to advocate that surgical oncologists perform the treatment of AC for stage II or III gastric cancers.
Capecitabine ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant* ; Compliance ; Disease-Free Survival ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Korea* ; Logistic Models ; Observational Study ; Propensity Score ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies* ; Selection Bias ; Stomach Neoplasms*

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent thromboembolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients has limitations such as drug interaction. This study investigated the clinical characteristics of Korean patients treated with VKA for stroke prevention and assessed quality of VKA therapy and treatment satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study. Patients with CHADS2 ≥ 1 and treated with VKA (started within the last 3 months) were enrolled from April 2013 to March 2014. Demographic and clinical features including risk factors of stroke and VKA treatment information was collected at baseline. Treatment patterns and international normalized ratio (INR) level were evaluated during follow-up. Time in therapeutic range (TTR) > 60% indicated well-controlled INR. Treatment satisfaction on the VKA use was measured by Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) after 3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 877 patients (age, 67; male, 60%) were enrolled and followed up for one year. More than half of patients (56%) had CHADS2 ≥ 2 and 83.6% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2. A total of 852 patients had one or more INR measurement during their follow-up period. Among those patients, 25.5% discontinued VKA treatment during follow-up. Of all patients, 626 patients (73%) had poor-controlled INR (TTR < 60%) measure. Patients' treatment satisfaction measured with TSQM was 55.6 in global satisfaction domain. CONCLUSION: INR was poorly controlled in Korean NVAF patients treated with VKA. VKA users also showed low treatment satisfaction.
Atrial Fibrillation* ; Drug Interactions ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; International Normalized Ratio ; Male ; Prospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Stroke ; Thromboembolism ; Vitamin K* ; Vitamins*

OBJECTIVE: Delaying embryo transfer (ET) enables us to select among the embryos available for transfer and is associated with positive effects on implantation and pregnancy outcomes. However, the optimal day for ET of human cleavage-stage embryos remains controversial. METHODS: A retrospective study of 3,124 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles (2,440 patients) was conducted. We compared the effects of day 2 and 3 ET on rates of implantation and pregnancy outcomes between young maternal age (YMA; <38 years old, n=2,295) and old maternal age (OMA; ≥38 years old, n=829) patient groups. RESULTS: The YMA and OMA groups did not differ in terms of patient characteristics except for the proportion of unexplained factor infertility, which was significantly greater in the OMA group, and the proportion of arrested embryos, which was significantly greater in the YMA group. However, the biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, abortion, and implantation rates per cycle were not significantly different between day 2 and 3 ET in the YMA group or the OMA group. CONCLUSION: We suggest that offering patients the opportunity to decide which day would be suitable for ET could be part of a patient-friendly protocol that takes into consideration an infertile woman's circumstances and work schedule by allowing ET to be performed on day 2 instead of the traditional transfer on day 3.
Appointments and Schedules ; Embryo Transfer* ; Embryonic Structures* ; Female ; Humans ; In Vitro Techniques ; Infertility ; Maternal Age* ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome ; Retrospective Studies ; Spermatozoa