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.

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.

Objective: We intended to investigate the relationships between visual sensory impairment (VSI) or auditory sensory impairment (ASI) and brain pathological changes associated with cognitive decline in older adults. Methods: We primarily tried to examine whether each sensory impairment is related to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, specifically beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition, through both cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches in cognitively unimpaired older adults. Self-report questionnaires on vision and hearing status were administered at the baseline.Neuroimaging scans including brain [ 11 C] Pittsburgh Compound B PET and MRI, as well as clinical assessments, were performed at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Results: Cross-sectional analyses showed that the VSI-positive group had significantly higher Aβ deposition than the VSI-negative group, whereas there was no significant association between ASI positivity and Aβ deposition. Longitudinal analyses revealed that VSI positivity at baseline was significantly associated with increased Aβ deposition over 2 years (β = 0.153, p = 0.025), although ASI positivity was not (β = 0.045, p = 0.518). VSI positivity at baseline was also significantly associated with greater atrophic changes in AD-related brain regions over the 2-year follow-up period (β = −0.207, p = 0.005), whereas ASI positivity was not (β = 0.024, p = 0.753). Neither VSI nor ASI positivity was related to cerebrovascular injury, as measured based on the white matter hyperintensity volume. Conclusion The findings suggest that VSI is probably related to AD-specific pathological changes, which possibly mediate the reported relationship between VSI and cognitive decline. In contrast, ASI appears not associated with AD pathologies but may contribute to cognitive decline via other mechanisms.

Objective: Previous studies have reported that vitamin D deficiency increased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia in older adults. However, little is known about how vitamin D is involved in the pathophysiology of AD. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association and interaction of serum vitamin D levels with in vivo AD pathologies including cerebral beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition and neurodegeneration in nondemented older adults. Methods: 428 Nondemented older adults were recruited from the Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease, a prospective cohort that began in 2014. All participants underwent comprehensive clinical assessments, measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), and multimodal brain imaging including Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Global PiB deposition was measured for the Aβ biomarker. Intracranial volume-adjusted hippocampal volume (HVa) was used as a neurodegeneration biomarker. Results: Overall, serum 25(OH)D level was not associated with either Aβ deposition or HVa after controlling for age, sex, apolipoprotein E ε4 positivity, and vascular risk factors. However, serum 25(OH)D level had a significant moderating effect on the association between Aβ and neurodegeneration, with lower serum 25(OH)D level significantly exacerbating cerebral Aβ-associated hippocampal volume loss (B = 34.612, p = 0.008). Conclusion Our findings indicate that lower serum vitamin D levels may contribute to AD by exacerbating Aβ-associated neurodegeneration in nondemented older adults. Further studies to explore the potential therapeutic effect of vitamin D supplementation on the progression of AD pathology will be necessary.

Objective: We intended to investigate the relationships between visual sensory impairment (VSI) or auditory sensory impairment (ASI) and brain pathological changes associated with cognitive decline in older adults. Methods: We primarily tried to examine whether each sensory impairment is related to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, specifically beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition, through both cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches in cognitively unimpaired older adults. Self-report questionnaires on vision and hearing status were administered at the baseline.Neuroimaging scans including brain [ 11 C] Pittsburgh Compound B PET and MRI, as well as clinical assessments, were performed at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Results: Cross-sectional analyses showed that the VSI-positive group had significantly higher Aβ deposition than the VSI-negative group, whereas there was no significant association between ASI positivity and Aβ deposition. Longitudinal analyses revealed that VSI positivity at baseline was significantly associated with increased Aβ deposition over 2 years (β = 0.153, p = 0.025), although ASI positivity was not (β = 0.045, p = 0.518). VSI positivity at baseline was also significantly associated with greater atrophic changes in AD-related brain regions over the 2-year follow-up period (β = −0.207, p = 0.005), whereas ASI positivity was not (β = 0.024, p = 0.753). Neither VSI nor ASI positivity was related to cerebrovascular injury, as measured based on the white matter hyperintensity volume. Conclusion The findings suggest that VSI is probably related to AD-specific pathological changes, which possibly mediate the reported relationship between VSI and cognitive decline. In contrast, ASI appears not associated with AD pathologies but may contribute to cognitive decline via other mechanisms.

Objective: Previous studies have reported that vitamin D deficiency increased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia in older adults. However, little is known about how vitamin D is involved in the pathophysiology of AD. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association and interaction of serum vitamin D levels with in vivo AD pathologies including cerebral beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition and neurodegeneration in nondemented older adults. Methods: 428 Nondemented older adults were recruited from the Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease, a prospective cohort that began in 2014. All participants underwent comprehensive clinical assessments, measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), and multimodal brain imaging including Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Global PiB deposition was measured for the Aβ biomarker. Intracranial volume-adjusted hippocampal volume (HVa) was used as a neurodegeneration biomarker. Results: Overall, serum 25(OH)D level was not associated with either Aβ deposition or HVa after controlling for age, sex, apolipoprotein E ε4 positivity, and vascular risk factors. However, serum 25(OH)D level had a significant moderating effect on the association between Aβ and neurodegeneration, with lower serum 25(OH)D level significantly exacerbating cerebral Aβ-associated hippocampal volume loss (B = 34.612, p = 0.008). Conclusion Our findings indicate that lower serum vitamin D levels may contribute to AD by exacerbating Aβ-associated neurodegeneration in nondemented older adults. Further studies to explore the potential therapeutic effect of vitamin D supplementation on the progression of AD pathology will be necessary.

Objective: We intended to investigate the relationships between visual sensory impairment (VSI) or auditory sensory impairment (ASI) and brain pathological changes associated with cognitive decline in older adults. Methods: We primarily tried to examine whether each sensory impairment is related to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, specifically beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition, through both cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches in cognitively unimpaired older adults. Self-report questionnaires on vision and hearing status were administered at the baseline.Neuroimaging scans including brain [ 11 C] Pittsburgh Compound B PET and MRI, as well as clinical assessments, were performed at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Results: Cross-sectional analyses showed that the VSI-positive group had significantly higher Aβ deposition than the VSI-negative group, whereas there was no significant association between ASI positivity and Aβ deposition. Longitudinal analyses revealed that VSI positivity at baseline was significantly associated with increased Aβ deposition over 2 years (β = 0.153, p = 0.025), although ASI positivity was not (β = 0.045, p = 0.518). VSI positivity at baseline was also significantly associated with greater atrophic changes in AD-related brain regions over the 2-year follow-up period (β = −0.207, p = 0.005), whereas ASI positivity was not (β = 0.024, p = 0.753). Neither VSI nor ASI positivity was related to cerebrovascular injury, as measured based on the white matter hyperintensity volume. Conclusion The findings suggest that VSI is probably related to AD-specific pathological changes, which possibly mediate the reported relationship between VSI and cognitive decline. In contrast, ASI appears not associated with AD pathologies but may contribute to cognitive decline via other mechanisms.

Objective: Previous studies have reported that vitamin D deficiency increased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia in older adults. However, little is known about how vitamin D is involved in the pathophysiology of AD. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association and interaction of serum vitamin D levels with in vivo AD pathologies including cerebral beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition and neurodegeneration in nondemented older adults. Methods: 428 Nondemented older adults were recruited from the Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease, a prospective cohort that began in 2014. All participants underwent comprehensive clinical assessments, measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), and multimodal brain imaging including Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Global PiB deposition was measured for the Aβ biomarker. Intracranial volume-adjusted hippocampal volume (HVa) was used as a neurodegeneration biomarker. Results: Overall, serum 25(OH)D level was not associated with either Aβ deposition or HVa after controlling for age, sex, apolipoprotein E ε4 positivity, and vascular risk factors. However, serum 25(OH)D level had a significant moderating effect on the association between Aβ and neurodegeneration, with lower serum 25(OH)D level significantly exacerbating cerebral Aβ-associated hippocampal volume loss (B = 34.612, p = 0.008). Conclusion Our findings indicate that lower serum vitamin D levels may contribute to AD by exacerbating Aβ-associated neurodegeneration in nondemented older adults. Further studies to explore the potential therapeutic effect of vitamin D supplementation on the progression of AD pathology will be necessary.