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.

The aim of this study was to develop evidence-based recommendations for determining the surgical extent in patients with locally invasive differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Locally invasive DTC with gross extrathyroidal extension invading surrounding anatomical structures may lead to several functional deficits and poor oncological outcomes. At present, the optimal extent of surgery in locally invasive DTC remains a matter of debate, and there are no adequate guidelines. On October 8, 2021, four experts searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases; the identified papers were reviewed by 39 experts in thyroid and head and neck surgery. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence, and to develop and report recommendations. The strength of a recommendation reflects the confidence of a guideline panel that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh any undesirable effects, across all patients for whom the recommendation is applicable. After completing the draft guidelines, Delphi questionnaires were completed by members of the Korean Society of Head and Neck Surgery. Twenty-seven evidence-based recommendations were made for several factors, including the preoperative workup; surgical extent of thyroidectomy; surgery for cancer invading the strap muscles, recurrent laryngeal nerve, laryngeal framework, trachea, or esophagus; and surgery for patients with central and lateral cervical lymph node involvement. Evidence-based guidelines were devised to help clinicians make safer and more efficient clinical decisions for the optimal surgical treatment of patients with locally invasive DTC.

Background: Data illustrating the impact of atopic dermatitis (AD) on lives of adults with AD in South Korea are limited. Objective: To assess the AD disease severity and its impact on quality of life (QoL) in patients with AD from South Korea. Methods: Patients with AD utilizing the specialist dermatology services of major hospitals in South Korea were assessed for disease severity using Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, for QoL using Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (for QoL), and for comorbidities and treatment experience via retrospective review of 12-month medical records. Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were also measured. Results: Of the 1,163 patients, 695 (59.8%) were men (mean age [years]±standard deviation: 31.6±12.1). Overall, 52.9% (n=615) patients had moderate-to-severe disease (EASI>7).The QoL of 72.3% (n=840) patients was affected moderately-to-severely (DLQI score: 6~30).Systemic immunosuppressants were used ≥1 over past 12 months in 51.9% (n=603) patients, and the most commonly used were cyclosporines (45.7%, n=531) and systemic corticosteroids (40.5%, n=471). Approximately, 10.8% (n=126) patients consulted or received treatment for AD-related eye problem. Of these, 40% (n=50) patients reported poor, very poor, or completely blind status; approximately, 16.7% patients (n=192) reported having depression or anxiety; and 35.5% (n=410) reported suicidal ideation or suicidal attempt. Conclusion A large proportion of patients had moderate-to-severe AD, a compromised QoL, and ocular or mental health comorbidities, indicating a high disease burden despite systemic treatment. These findings highlight the importance of a holistic approach for the evaluation and treatment of patients with AD.

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.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the recent prevalence, management, and comorbidities of diabetes among Korean adults aged ≥30 years by analyzing nationally representative data. Methods: This study used data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2016 to 2018, and the percentage and total number of people ≥30 years of age with diabetes and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) were estimated. Results: In 2018, 13.8% of Korean adults aged ≥30 years had diabetes, and adults aged ≥65 years showed a prevalence rate of 28%. The prevalence of IFG was 26.9% in adults aged ≥30 years. From 2016 to 2018, 35% of the subjects with diabetes were not aware of their condition. Regarding comorbidities, 53.2% and 61.3% were obese and hypertensive, respectively, and 72% had hypercholesterolemia as defined by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥100 mg/dL in people with diabetes. Of the subjects with diabetes, 43.7% had both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. With regard to glycemic control, only 28.3% reached the target level of <6.5%. Moreover, only 11.5% of subjects with diabetes met all three targets of glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, and LDL-C. The percentage of energy intake from carbohydrates was higher in diabetes patients than in those without diabetes, while that from protein and fat was lower in subjects with diabetes. Conclusion The high prevalence and low control rate of diabetes and its comorbidities in Korean adults were confirmed. More stringent efforts are needed to improve the comprehensive management of diabetes to reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality.