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.

Purpose: To evaluate the potential advantages of using topical rebamipide 2% to manage dry eye following cataract surgery. Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery (phacoemulsification and intraocular lens insertion) were evaluated for dry eye 1 week postoperatively. Randomly selected patients were divided into the rebamipide group, who received 2% rebamipide eye drops, and the control group, who did not receive rebamipide. Various dry eye-related tests, including Schirmer’s test, the tear break-up time (TBUT), ocular surface staining, tear film osmolarity, tear lipid layer thickness, and the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) were performed in both groups 1 week, and 1 and 2 months postoperatively. Results: In the rebamipide group, we observed significant improvement in TBUT, the ocular surface staining score, and OSDI at 2 months postoperatively, as compared to 1 week (p = 0.002, 0.014, and 0.013, respectively). Schirmer’s test, tear film osmolarity, and tear lipid layer thickness remained unchanged in the rebamipide group. Throughout the entire follow-up period, the rebamipide group had a significantly prolonged TBUT (1 month: p = 0.007, 2 months: p = 0.000), and lower ocular surface staining score (1 month: p = 0.000, 2 months: p = 0.000), as compared to the control. Conclusions Following cataract surgery, the use of rebamipide eye drops produced improvements in TBUT, ocular surface staining scores, and OSDI. This suggests that rebamipide offers benefits in managing dry eye that can occur after cataract surgery.

Purpose: Gastric cancer (GC) is among the most prevalent and fatal cancers worldwide.National cancer screening programs in countries with high incidences of this disease provide medical aid beneficiaries with free-of-charge screening involving upper endoscopy to detect early-stage GC. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to routine healthcare access. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, overall incidence, and stage distribution of GC. Materials and Methods: We identified patients in our hospital cancer registry who were diagnosed with GC between January 2018 and December 2021 and compared the cancer stage at diagnosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to age and sex. The years 2018 and 2019 were defined as the “before COVID” period, and the years 2020 and 2021 as the “during COVID” period. Results: Overall, 10,875 patients were evaluated; 6,535 and 4,340 patients were diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 period, respectively. The number of diagnoses was lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (189 patients/month vs. 264 patients/month) than before it.Notably, the proportion of patients with stages 3 or 4 GC in 2021 was higher among men and patients aged ≥40 years. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall number of GC diagnoses decreased significantly in a single institute. Moreover, GCs were in more advanced stages at the time of diagnosis. Further studies are required to elucidate the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay in the detection of GC worldwide.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of postoperative chemotherapy in pT1bN0 and pT2N0 gastric cancer patients with high risk factors. Materials and Methods: Clinicopathological data of gastric cancer patients, who had undergone gastrectomy in high volume centers in Korea and China and were finally diagnosed with pT1bN0 and pT2N0 between 2006 and 2010, were analyzed retrospectively. Survival analyses stratified by risk factors and multivariable analyses were performed. Results: A total of 1509 patients were enrolled, with 41 (2.7%) patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after gastrectomy and 1468 (97.3%) patients undergoing surgery alone. The adjuvant chemotherapy group showed higher percentages of tumor with maximal diameter >3 cm (51.2% vs. 25.8%), poor differentiation (68.3% vs. 49.8%), and less harvested lymph nodes (17.1% vs. 5.2%) compared to the surgery alone group. The overall survival rates were 95.1% in the adjuvant chemotherapy group and 93.3% in the surgery alone group, without significant difference. In multivariable analysis, age was found to be an independent prognostic factor. However, there were no difference in the overall survival between patients with risk factors and those without risk factors, even in terms of age. Meanwhile, patients with more than two risk factors who received chemotherapy showed better survival trend, especially for pT2N0 patients, compared to the surgery alone group, although no significant differences were observed. Conclusion In pT1bN0 and pT2N0 patients, age was found to be an independent prognostic factor. However, adjuvant chemotherapy seemed to be unnecessary, while postoperative chemotherapy might offer survival benefits to pT2N0 patients with more than two risk factors.

Purpose: The vascular clipping system (VCS) is beneficial as it is simple and easy to apply for microvascular suturing. Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation is a very basic standard technique of microvascular surgery. In this study the VCS and the conventional suture methods were compared in a rabbit model using the carotid artery and vein to create an AVF. Methods: There were 28 rabbits assigned equally into 2 groups using the AVF creation method (conventional suturing or the VCS procedure). Histopathology was performed on fixed samples. The procedure time of the 2 methods and changes in histopathology of tissue samples after surgery were compared. Results: The VCS procedure showed a lower degree of fibrosis and hyperplasia histologically compared with the conventional suture method. The VCS was quicker to perform and no significant anastomosis stricture was observed. Conclusion In a rabbit model of AVF, the VCS has benefits over the conventional suture method. The VCS provides comparable patency rates, produces fewer side effects such as fibrosis and hyperplasia, and takes less operation time than suturing. The VCS is expected to be useful for cases where renal patients need periodic hemodialysis and thus repetitive access to a vessel.

Purpose: The vascular clipping system (VCS) is beneficial as it is simple and easy to apply for microvascular suturing. Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation is a very basic standard technique of microvascular surgery. In this study the VCS and the conventional suture methods were compared in a rabbit model using the carotid artery and vein to create an AVF. Methods: There were 28 rabbits assigned equally into 2 groups using the AVF creation method (conventional suturing or the VCS procedure). Histopathology was performed on fixed samples. The procedure time of the 2 methods and changes in histopathology of tissue samples after surgery were compared. Results: The VCS procedure showed a lower degree of fibrosis and hyperplasia histologically compared with the conventional suture method. The VCS was quicker to perform and no significant anastomosis stricture was observed. Conclusion In a rabbit model of AVF, the VCS has benefits over the conventional suture method. The VCS provides comparable patency rates, produces fewer side effects such as fibrosis and hyperplasia, and takes less operation time than suturing. The VCS is expected to be useful for cases where renal patients need periodic hemodialysis and thus repetitive access to a vessel.

Background: Inconsistent results have been observed regarding the independent effect of diabetes on the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study to evaluate the relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 severity in South Korea. Methods: Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 aged ≥30 years were enrolled and medical claims data were obtained from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Hospitalization, oxygen treatment, ventilator application, and mortality were assessed as severity outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities. Results: Of 5,307 COVID-19 patients, the mean age was 56.0±14.4 years, 2,043 (38.5%) were male, and 770 (14.5%) had diabetes. The number of patients who were hospitalized, who received oxygen, who required ventilator support, and who died was 4,986 (94.0%), 884 (16.7%), 121 (2.3%), and 211 (4.0%), respectively. The proportion of patients with diabetes in the abovementioned outcome groups was 14.7%, 28.1%, 41.3%, 44.6%, showing an increasing trend according to outcome severity. In multivariate analyses, diabetes was associated with worse outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.349 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.099 to 1.656; P=0.004) for oxygen treatment, an aOR of 1.930 (95% CI, 1.276 to 2.915; P<0.001) for ventilator use, and an aOR of 2.659 (95% CI, 1.896 to 3.729; P<0.001) for mortality. Conclusion Diabetes was associated with worse clinical outcomes in Korean patients with COVID-19, independent of other comorbidities. Therefore, patients with diabetes and COVID-19 should be treated with caution.

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial to compare S-1 plus docetaxel (DS) with S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III gastric cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage III gastric cancer patients who had received curative gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy were randomized into equal groups to receive adjuvant chemotherapy of eight cycles of DS (S-1 70 mg/m2/day on days 1-14 plus docetaxel 35 mg/m2on days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks or SP (S-1 70 mg/m2/day on days 1-14 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2on day 1) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate. RESULTS: Between November 2010 and July 2013, 153 patients (75 patients to DS and 78 patients to SP) were enrolled from 8 institutions in Korea. After the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin was approved based on the CLASSIC study, itwas decided to close the study early. With a median follow-up duration of 56.9 months, the 3-year DFS rate between two groups was not significantly different (49.14% in DS group vs. 52.5% in SP group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (42.7% in DS and 38.5% in SP, p=0.351). SP group had more grade 3-4 anemia (1.3% vs. 11.5%, p=0.037), whereas grade 3-4 hand-foot syndrome (4.1% vs. 0%, p=0.025) and mucositis (10.7% vs. 2.6%, p=0.001) were more common in DS group. Fifty-one patients (68%) in DS group and 52 (66.7%) in SP group finished planned treatment. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SP or DS is an effective and tolerable option for patients with curatively resected stage III gastric cancer.
Anemia ; Capecitabine ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant* ; Cisplatin ; Disease-Free Survival ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gastrectomy ; Hand-Foot Syndrome ; Humans ; Korea ; Lymph Node Excision ; Mucositis ; Neutropenia ; Stomach Neoplasms*