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.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of aripiprazole long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotics combination therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic medical records of patients with schizophrenia who initiated aripiprazole long-acting injectable and were treated with antipsychotics combination therapy. These patients were either admitted to a psychiatric hospital or treated as outpatients between June, 2019 and December, 2019. Results: Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of antipsychotics significantly decreased from 2.53 use to 1.81 at month 12 (p=0.018). Total antipsychotics olanzapine equivalent dose significantly decreased from 46.96 to 27.54 at month 12 (p=0.005). The number of combined medications including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, and anticholinergics did not significantly change. Both the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score significantly improved until month 24 (p=0.004, 0.038; respectively). Conclusions This observational study confirmed that aripiprazole long-acting injection is an effective treatment option for patients with schizophrenia undergoing antipsychotic combination therapy. Well-controlled clinical trials are necessary in the near future.

Background: Over the last decade, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in critically ill children has increased and is associated with favorable outcomes. Our study aims to evaluate the current status of pediatric ECMO in Korea, with a specific focus on its volume and changes in survival rates based on diagnostic indications. Methods: This multicenter study retrospectively analyzed the indications and outcomes of pediatric ECMO over 10 years in patients at 14 hospitals in Korea from January 2012 to December 2021. Four diagnostic categories (neonatal respiratory, pediatric respiratory, postcardiotomy, and cardiac-medical) and trends were compared between periods 1 (2012–2016) and 2 (2017–2021). Results: Overall, 1065 ECMO runs were performed on 1032 patients, with the annual number of cases remaining unchanged over the 10 years. ECMO was most frequently used for post-cardiotomy (42.4%), cardiac-medical (31.8%), pediatric respiratory (17.5%), and neonatal respiratory (8.2%) cases. A 3.7% increase and 6.1% decrease in pediatric respiratory and post-cardiotomy cases, respectively, were noted between periods 1 and 2.Among the four groups, the cardiac-medical group had the highest survival rate (51.2%), followed by the pediatric respiratory (46.4%), post-cardiotomy (36.5%), and neonatal respiratory (29.4%) groups. A consistent improvement was noted in patient survival over the 10 years, with a significant increase between the two periods from 38.2% to 47.1% (P = 0.004). Improvement in survival was evident in post-cardiotomy cases (30–45%, P = 0.002).Significant associations with mortality were observed in neonates, patients requiring dialysis, and those treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P < 0.001). In pediatric respiratory ECMO, immunocompromised patients also showed a significant correlation with mortality (P < 0.001). Conclusion Pediatric ECMO demonstrated a steady increase in overall survival in Korea;however, further efforts are needed since the outcomes remain suboptimal compared with global outcomes.

Purpose: Oxaliplatin, a component of the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) regimen, has a more favorable toxicity profile than cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). However, oxaliplatin can induce sensory neuropathy and cumulative, dose-related toxicities. Thus, the capecitabine maintenance regimen may achieve the maximum treatment effect while reducing the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with advanced GC between capecitabine maintenance and observation after 1st line XELOX chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients treated with six cycles of XELOX for advanced GC in six hospitals of the Catholic University of Korea were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine maintenance or observation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed using a two-sided log-rank test stratified at a 5% significance level. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 32 and 31 patients were randomized into the maintenance and observation groups, respectively. After randomization, the median number of capecitabine maintenance cycles was 6. The PFS was significantly higher in the maintenance group than the observation group (6.3 vs. 4.1 months, P=0.010). Overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (18.2 vs. 16.5 months, P=0.624). Toxicities, such as hand-foot syndrome, were reported in some maintenance group patients. Maintenance treatment was a significant factor associated with PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.250–0.890; P=0.020). Conclusions After 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy, capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged PFS compared with observation, and toxicity was manageable. Maintenance treatment was a significant prognostic factor associated with PFS.

Primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) is a rare, but almost always fatal, central nervous system infection caused by Naegleria fowleri, which are thermophilic free-living amoeba. Here, we report the first case of PAM detected in South Korea, probably imported from Thailand. Despite antimicrobial treatment for N. fowleri infection with a combination of intravenous liposomal amphotericin B, fluconazole, azithromycin, and oral rifampin, the patient died 13 days after the onset of symptoms. Clinicians in South Korea treating severe meningoencephalitis, especially in individuals returning from tropical areas, are encouraged to include PAM in the differential diagnoses, given the accelerated global warming and increased overseas trips.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the use of active surgical co-management (SCM) by medical hospitalists for urology inpatient care. Materials and Methods: Since March 2019, a hospitalist-SCM program was implemented at a tertiary-care medical center, and a retrospective cohort study was conducted among co-managed urology inpatients. We assessed the clinical outcomes of urology inpatients who received SCM and compared passive SCM (co-management of patients by hospitalists only on request; March 2019 to June 2020) with active SCM (co-management of patients based on active screening by hospitalists; July 2020 to October 2021). We also evaluated the perceptions of patients who received SCM toward inpatient care quality, safety, and subjective satisfaction with inpatient care at discharge or when transferred to other wards. Results: We assessed 525 patients. Compared with the passive SCM group (n=205), patients in the active SCM group (n=320) required co-management for a significantly shorter duration (p=0.012) and tended to have a shorter length of stay at the urology ward (p=0.062) and less frequent unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge (p=0.095) while triggering significantly fewer events of rapid response team activation (p=0.002). No differences were found in the proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality rates, or inpatient care questionnaire scores. Conclusion Active surveillance and co-management of urology inpatients by medical hospitalists can improve the quality and efficacy of inpatient care without compromising subjective inpatient satisfaction.