Background: Older patients aged ≥75 years are underrepresented in major statin trials, leaving the optimal statin intensity after acute ischemic stroke (AIS) undefined. We aimed to compare functional outcomes and short-term safety between high-intensity statin therapy (HIST) and moderate-intensity statin therapy (MIST) in patients aged ≥75 years with AIS or transient ischemic attack. Methods: Using a prospective stroke registry at a single tertiary center (2019–2022), we retrospectively analyzed 337 patients aged ≥75 years with AIS or transient ischemic attack who maintained statin therapy for 3 months (HIST n=117; MIST n=220). The primary outcome was a favorable 3-month functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2). Secondary outcomes included stroke recurrence, adverse effects, and statin discontinuation. Multivariable logistic regression with pre-specified sensitivity analyses was performed. Results: Favorable outcomes at 3 months were more frequent with HIST (70.9% vs. 55.9%; p=0.010). After multivariable adjustment, HIST was independently associated with a favorable outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–3.53), consistent across sensitivity analyses: per-protocol (aOR=3.48, 95% CI 1.97–6.17) and atrial fibrillation-adjusted (aOR=2.21, 95% CI 1.26–3.89). No significant differences were observed in statin discontinuation, stroke recurrence, or adverse effects. Conclusion In older patients with AIS, HIST was independently associated with better functional outcomes without evidence of increased harm, broadly consistent with current guideline recommendations for HIST when tolerated. Prospective studies are needed to confirm a causal relationship.

Purpose: This study evaluates the Korean Cancer Study Group Geriatric Score-7 (KG-7) frailty screening tool’s effectiveness in elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients to prevent under and overtreatment. Materials and Methods: This prospective pilot cohort study included 100 elderly patients aged 70 and older with newly diagnosed MM who had not undergone transplantation from August 2020 to January 2022. Results: The median age was 77 years, and 73.0% of patients were classified at International Staging System stages 2 or 3. Using a 5-point cutoff on the KG-7 index (non-frail, score ≥ 5; frail, score < 5), 31% were categorized as frail. After a median follow-up of 26.8 months, the 3-year overall survival rate was 73.0%. There was no statistically significant association between any frailty index and the risk of death. However, frail patients defined by the simplified frailty index (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 5.95; p=0.030) and by KG-7 (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.03 to 5.86; p=0.043) had a significantly higher risk of grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity, whereas the International Myeloma Working Group definition did not. Over a 24-month tracking period, vulnerability as measured by KG-7 either improved or deteriorated. Conclusion The pilot study, which had a limited number of participants, did not demonstrate KG-7’s effectiveness in predicting survival; however, it successfully predicted severe non-hematologic toxicities. We plan to conduct larger studies in elderly MM patients to determine whether KG-7 can help tailor their treatment regimens.

In patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), initial recurrence risk stratification based on clinical, histopathological, and perioperative data remains the key determinant for guiding management strategies during the first 1-2 years post-treatment. However, the adoption of ongoing risk stratification (ORS), which dynamically reassesses risk by integrating longitudinal clinical data and treatment response, enables more precise long-term prognostic assessment and facilitates highly individualized management. Building upon recent guidelines, the 2026 KTA guideline has been further refined by incorporating robust evidence from large-scale national cohorts and comprehensive systematic reviews. These updated recommendations outline contemporary concepts of ORS, risk-adapted TSH suppression targets, optimized surveillance modalities for recurrence detection, and disease-specific long-term follow-up strategies. Reflecting the paradigm shift toward de-escalated treatment, this revision integrates evolved perspectives on TSH suppression intensity, the clinical interpretation of thyroglobulin levels, and tailored follow-up intervals. These evidence-based recommendations aim to minimize unnecessary treatment and excessive surveillance in the large proportion of patients with excellent prognosis after initial therapy, while ensuring that each patient receives appropriately tailored and effective long-term management.

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disease, affecting approximately 0.5% to 2% of the global population. OLP can lead to long-term oral pain, reduced quality of life, with the potential for malignant transformation. Current treatment strategies focus on symptom management and reducing the risk of malignancy. Treatment of OLP is challenging and varies from patient to patient, especially in those who do not respond to corticosteroids. The effectiveness and safety of second-line and third-line treatment options in such cases are continually compared and evaluated, and recently, the application of Janus kinase inhibitors, micro ribonucleic acids, and mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies is being assessed. As a result, the ability of clinicians to select the most appropriate treatment modalities for each patient remains crucial. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of recent treatment modalities and key considerations to assist clinicians in selecting effective and safe treatment strategies for OLP.

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.