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.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Background: and Purpose Oxygen treatment is the first-line acute treatment for cluster headaches (CHs), but this can be impeded by insurance coverage and oxygen-tank maintenance. Oxygen concentrators filter nitrogen from ambient air to produce oxygen-rich gas, and can therefore be an alternative to conventional oxygen therapy using a tank. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of using two home oxygen concentrators and compared them with using oral zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of CHs. Methods: Forty patients with episodic CHs in an active cluster period were enrolled in this randomized, crossover, multicenter study. Two attacks during the cluster period were treated using oxygen delivered by connecting two home oxygen concentrators, whereas the other two attacks were treated using oral zolmitriptan (5 mg) in a random sequence. The primary endpoint was substantial pain reduction (0 or 1 on a five-point rating scale from 0 to 4 points) at 15 min after treatment. Results: In total, 125 attacks among 32 patients were randomized and treated (63 attacks using oxygen and 62 using zolmitriptan) according to the study protocol. More attacks treated using oxygen reached the primary endpoint than did those treated using zolmitriptan (31.7% [20/63] vs. 12.9% [8/62], p=0.013). After 30 min, 57.1% of the patients who received oxygen and 38.7% who received zolmitriptan reported pain relief (p=0.082). All patients treated using oxygen reported an improvement in pain, and 61.3% preferred oxygen while only 9.7% preferred zolmitriptan. No adverse events occurred during the oxygen treatment. Conclusions Oxygen treatment administered using two home oxygen concentrators resulted in better pain relief than oral zolmitriptan in patients with episodic CHs. Our results suggest that home oxygen concentrators are capable of efficiently supplying oxygen in a similar manner to using an oxygen tank.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Background: and Purpose The estimated prevalence of migraines in South Korea is 6.0%, with affected patients having unmet needs. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, for episodic migraine (EM) prevention was evaluated in South Korean patients. Methods: During the double-blind period of the EVOLVE-2 phase 3 trial, patients with EM were randomized into placebo, 120 mg-galcanezumab, and 240-mg galcanezumab treatment groups. The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days during the 6-month double-blind period. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the South Korean cohort in EVOLVE-2. Results: Among 98 South Korean patients in the intent-to-treat population, significant changes from baseline were observed in the number of monthly migraine headache days in the 240-mg galcanezumab group compared with the placebo group (-2.64, p=0.013), in the percentage of patients with ≥50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine headache days (120 mg: odds ratio=2.43, p=0.030; 240 mg: odds ratio=2.60, p=0.019), in the number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use (120 mg: -2.22, p=0.006; 240 mg: -2.23, p=0.005), and in the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Role Function-Restrictive (120 mg: 8.34, p=0.040). Numerical improvements from baseline were observed relative to the placebo group in at least one galcanezumab group for: the percentage of patients with ≥75% reduction in the number of monthly migraine headache days functional impairment, and disease severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event in the combined galcanezumab group was injection site reaction, which led to treatment discontinuation for one patient. Conclusions Galcanezumab treatment demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety and tolerability profile in South Korean patients with EM.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation provides both basal and mealtime glycaemic control in a single injection. The glucose level-lowering efficacy of IDegAsp is reported to be superior or non-inferior to that of the currently available insulin therapies with a lower rate of overall hypoglycaemia and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. An expert panel from Malaysia aims to provide insights into the utilisation of IDegAsp across a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (i.e. treatment-naïve or insulin-naïve patients or patients receiving treatment intensification from basal-only regimens, premixed insulin and basal–bolus insulin therapy). IDegAsp can be initiated as once-daily dosing for the main meal with the largest carbohydrate content with weekly dose adjustments based on patient response. A lower starting dose is recommended for patients with cardiac or renal comorbidities. Dose intensification with IDegAsp may warrant splitting into twice-daily dosing. IDegAsp twice-daily dosing does not need to be split at a 50:50 ratio but should be adjusted to match the carbohydrate content of meals. The treatment of patients choosing to fast during Ramadan should be switched to IDegAsp early before Ramadan, as a longer duration of titration leads to better glycated haemoglobin level reductions. The pre-Ramadan breakfast/lunch insulin dose can be reduced by 30%–50% and taken during sahur, while the pre-Ramadan dinner dose can be taken without any change during iftar. Education on the main meal concept is important, as carbohydrates are present in almost all meals. Patients should not have a misconception of consuming more carbohydrates while taking IDegAsp.
insulin degludec [Supplementary Concept] ; Insulin Aspart ; Glucose ; Hypoglycaemia ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.