Enterococcus faecium, particularly in its multidrug-resistant forms, causes invasive nosocomial infections. Given the limited data comparing the effectiveness of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the CLSI clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for quinupristin–dalfopristin (QD) resistance and the need to evaluate their practical application, we retrospectively investigated the susceptibility patterns of 287 E.faecium bloodstream isolates from Korean hospitals to QD using the updated EUCAST and CLSI CBPs and two antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods: disk diffusion (DD) and Sensititre broth microdilution (Sensititre). QD resistance rates were 5.9% (CLSI) and 18.8% (EUCAST) for DD and 22.6% (CLSI) and 28.2% (EUCAST) for Sensititre. The most prevalent QD resistance gene types among QD-resistant isolates were ermB+msrC+ or ermB– msrC+. Categorical agreement between DD and Sensititre ranged from 77.7% to 90.7%, depending on the testing method and CBPs applied. The EUCAST zone diameter CBPs more effectively help identify QD-resistant E. faecium isolates using the DD method than the CLSI zone diameter CBPs. In comparison, the CLSI minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) CBPs provide more reliable results for resistance classification in the Sensititre method than EUCAST MIC CBPs. These findings would help improve clinical decision-making for treating multidrug-resistant E. faecium infections.

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.

Angiogram-negative subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) represents a diagnostic challenge because rebleeding risk persists despite negative initial angiography. We report a rare case of a 65-year-old man presenting with diffuse SAH on initial CT but with negative CTA and transfemoral cerebral angiography (TFCA). Serial follow-up CT scans demonstrated gradual resolution of subarachnoid blood except for persistent prepontine cisternal hemorrhage. On hospital day 7, repeat TFCA revealed a bilobulated pseudoaneurysm arising from a midbasilar perforator artery. The lesion was treated using a modified stent-assisted coiling technique involving partial coil deployment, achieving complete angiographic obliteration with parent artery preservation. Post-procedural diffusion-weighted MRI demonstrated a left pontine infarction, but the patient achieved meaningful functional recovery and returned to work at the 3-month follow-up. This case underscores the necessity of repeat angiography in diffuse angiogram-negative SAH and highlights tailored endovascular strategies for fragile basilar perforator pseudoaneurysm.