Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the detection ability of quality of life (QoL) changes and responsiveness of the KOrean QUality of life in Stomach cancer patients Study group (KOQUSS)-40 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ). Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate QoL changes after various gastrectomies between January 2021 and April 2022. Participants were instructed to complete the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. QoL changes over time and QoL responsiveness were assessed for each questionnaire. Results: Data from 491 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer at 22 institutions were analyzed. The summary scores of the KOQUSS-40 and EORTC QLQ-STO22 showed significant differences between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.044 and p=0.038, respectively), but no difference was observed for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Dysphagia on the KOQUSS-40 was significantly different between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups (p=0.031); however, dysphagia on the EORTC QLQ-STO22 did not differ. The responsiveness of the KOQUSS-40 was similar to that of the EORTC QLQ in patients who experienced ≥ 10% body weight loss, but approximately 10% less in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy than the EORTC QLQ. Conclusion KOQUSS-40 has several advantages over EORTC QLQ-C30/STO22 when comparing QoL between the total and proximal gastrectomy groups. The findings provide information for researchers investigating the QoL of patients who have undergone curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Objectives: Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable potential in healthcare communication. However, whether they can process complex, high-volume medical information, such as stroke-related content, remains insufficiently validated. This study aimed to evaluate the natural language processing capabilities of LLMs in handling such content and to develop an evaluation instrument. Methods: A survey compared educational materials generated by two LLMs (ChatGPT 4.0 and Claude 3) with neurologist-authored content on stroke. The materials were based on two clinical scenarios representing distinct stroke etiologies: cardioembolism and large-artery atherosclerosis. They were evaluated in terms of accuracy, legality, ethics, comprehensiveness, and information delivery. Scores for comprehensiveness and information delivery were compared according to participants’ agreement with the use of LLMs in healthcare. Results: ChatGPT received the highest scores across all domains, except for legality in Scenario 2. In Scenario 1, the ranking for accuracy and summarization of clinical information was, from highest to lowest, ChatGPT, Claude, and the neurologist (η2 = 0.140, p < 0.001; η2 = 0.175, p < 0.001). The same hierarchy was observed in Scenario 2 for accuracy (η2 = 0.077, p < 0.001) and summarization (η2 = 0.194, p < 0.001). Participants who agreed with the use of LLMs in healthcare assigned higher scores for the comprehensiveness (Scenario 1, p = 0.005; Scenario 2, p = 0.007) and information delivery (Scenario 1, p = 0.003; Scenario 2, p = 0.026) of ChatGPT-generated materials than participants who did not agree. Conclusions LLMs demonstrated adequate capability to convey complex content, such as stroke-related information, in an accessible and understandable manner for non-experts.

Objective: This study aimed to identify the factors contributing to post-traumatic growth (PTG) among nurses who experienced patient death during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to evaluate the necessity of grief support is required. Methods: An online survey was conducted to assess the experiences of nurses at Ulsan University Hospital who lost patients during the past year of the pandemic. In total, 211 nurses were recruited. We obtained information on the participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics. For symptoms rating, we used the following scales: the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI), Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemic-9 (SAVE-9), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS), and Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS), and Grief Support in Healthcare Scale (GSHCS). Pearson’s correlation coefficients, linear regression, and mediation analysis were employed. Results: PTGI scores were significantly correlated with the SAVE-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PHQ-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PGS (r=0.28, p<0.01), UGRS (r=0.45, p<0.01), and GSHCS scores (r=0.46, p<0.01). The linear regression analysis revealed the factors significantly associated with PTGI scores: SAVE-9 (β=0.16, p=0.014), UGRS (β=0.29, p<0.001), and GSHCS (β=0.34, p<0.001). The mediation analysis revealed that nurses’ stress and anxiety about COVID-19 and grief rumination had a direct impact on PTG, with grief support serving as a significant mediator. Conclusion PTG was promoted by increases in the medical staff’s anxiety and stress related to COVID-19, grief rumination, and grief support. For the medical staff’s experience of bereavement to result in meaningful personal and professional growth, family members, colleagues, and other associates should provide thoughtful support.

Objective: This study aimed to identify the factors contributing to post-traumatic growth (PTG) among nurses who experienced patient death during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to evaluate the necessity of grief support is required. Methods: An online survey was conducted to assess the experiences of nurses at Ulsan University Hospital who lost patients during the past year of the pandemic. In total, 211 nurses were recruited. We obtained information on the participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics. For symptoms rating, we used the following scales: the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI), Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemic-9 (SAVE-9), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS), and Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS), and Grief Support in Healthcare Scale (GSHCS). Pearson’s correlation coefficients, linear regression, and mediation analysis were employed. Results: PTGI scores were significantly correlated with the SAVE-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PHQ-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PGS (r=0.28, p<0.01), UGRS (r=0.45, p<0.01), and GSHCS scores (r=0.46, p<0.01). The linear regression analysis revealed the factors significantly associated with PTGI scores: SAVE-9 (β=0.16, p=0.014), UGRS (β=0.29, p<0.001), and GSHCS (β=0.34, p<0.001). The mediation analysis revealed that nurses’ stress and anxiety about COVID-19 and grief rumination had a direct impact on PTG, with grief support serving as a significant mediator. Conclusion PTG was promoted by increases in the medical staff’s anxiety and stress related to COVID-19, grief rumination, and grief support. For the medical staff’s experience of bereavement to result in meaningful personal and professional growth, family members, colleagues, and other associates should provide thoughtful support.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

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.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

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 aimed to identify the factors contributing to post-traumatic growth (PTG) among nurses who experienced patient death during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to evaluate the necessity of grief support is required. Methods: An online survey was conducted to assess the experiences of nurses at Ulsan University Hospital who lost patients during the past year of the pandemic. In total, 211 nurses were recruited. We obtained information on the participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics. For symptoms rating, we used the following scales: the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI), Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemic-9 (SAVE-9), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS), and Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS), and Grief Support in Healthcare Scale (GSHCS). Pearson’s correlation coefficients, linear regression, and mediation analysis were employed. Results: PTGI scores were significantly correlated with the SAVE-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PHQ-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PGS (r=0.28, p<0.01), UGRS (r=0.45, p<0.01), and GSHCS scores (r=0.46, p<0.01). The linear regression analysis revealed the factors significantly associated with PTGI scores: SAVE-9 (β=0.16, p=0.014), UGRS (β=0.29, p<0.001), and GSHCS (β=0.34, p<0.001). The mediation analysis revealed that nurses’ stress and anxiety about COVID-19 and grief rumination had a direct impact on PTG, with grief support serving as a significant mediator. Conclusion PTG was promoted by increases in the medical staff’s anxiety and stress related to COVID-19, grief rumination, and grief support. For the medical staff’s experience of bereavement to result in meaningful personal and professional growth, family members, colleagues, and other associates should provide thoughtful support.

Objective: This study aimed to identify the factors contributing to post-traumatic growth (PTG) among nurses who experienced patient death during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to evaluate the necessity of grief support is required. Methods: An online survey was conducted to assess the experiences of nurses at Ulsan University Hospital who lost patients during the past year of the pandemic. In total, 211 nurses were recruited. We obtained information on the participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics. For symptoms rating, we used the following scales: the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI), Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemic-9 (SAVE-9), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS), and Utrecht Grief Rumination Scale (UGRS), and Grief Support in Healthcare Scale (GSHCS). Pearson’s correlation coefficients, linear regression, and mediation analysis were employed. Results: PTGI scores were significantly correlated with the SAVE-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PHQ-9 (r=0.31, p<0.01), PGS (r=0.28, p<0.01), UGRS (r=0.45, p<0.01), and GSHCS scores (r=0.46, p<0.01). The linear regression analysis revealed the factors significantly associated with PTGI scores: SAVE-9 (β=0.16, p=0.014), UGRS (β=0.29, p<0.001), and GSHCS (β=0.34, p<0.001). The mediation analysis revealed that nurses’ stress and anxiety about COVID-19 and grief rumination had a direct impact on PTG, with grief support serving as a significant mediator. Conclusion PTG was promoted by increases in the medical staff’s anxiety and stress related to COVID-19, grief rumination, and grief support. For the medical staff’s experience of bereavement to result in meaningful personal and professional growth, family members, colleagues, and other associates should provide thoughtful support.