1.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
2.Pharmacological Treatment of Oral Lichen Planus: A Review of Evaluated Therapeutics
Kun-Hwa KANG ; Ji-Rak KIM ; Jae-Kwang JUNG ; Jin-Seok BYUN
Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain 2025;50(1):6-15
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.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
4.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
5.Twenty-Five Year Trend Change in the Etiology of Pediatric Invasive Bacterial Infections in Korea, 1996–2020
Seung Ha SONG ; Hyunju LEE ; Hoan Jong LEE ; Eun Song SONG ; Jong Gyun AHN ; Su Eun PARK ; Taekjin LEE ; Hye-Kyung CHO ; Jina LEE ; Yae-Jean KIM ; Dae Sun JO ; Jong-Hyun KIM ; Hyun Mi KANG ; Joon Kee LEE ; Chun Soo KIM ; Dong Hyun KIM ; Hwang Min KIM ; Jae Hong CHOI ; Byung Wook EUN ; Nam Hee KIM ; Eun Young CHO ; Yun-Kyung KIM ; Chi Eun OH ; Kyung-Hyo KIM ; Sang Hyuk MA ; Hyun Joo JUNG ; Kun Song LEE ; Kwang Nam KIM ; Eun Hwa CHOI
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2023;38(16):e127-
Background:
The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has contributed to the change in the epidemiology of many infectious diseases. This study aimed to establish the pre-pandemic epidemiology of pediatric invasive bacterial infection (IBI).
Methods:
A retrospective multicenter-based surveillance for pediatric IBIs has been maintained from 1996 to 2020 in Korea. IBIs caused by eight bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Neisseria meningitidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella species) in immunocompetent children > 3 months of age were collected at 29 centers. The annual trend in the proportion of IBIs by each pathogen was analyzed.
Results:
A total of 2,195 episodes were identified during the 25-year period between 1996 and 2020. S. pneumoniae (42.4%), S. aureus (22.1%), and Salmonella species (21.0%) were common in children 3 to 59 months of age. In children ≥ 5 years of age, S. aureus (58.1%), followed by Salmonella species (14.8%) and S. pneumoniae (12.2%) were common. Excluding the year 2020, there was a trend toward a decrease in the relative proportions of S. pneumoniae (rs = −0.430, P = 0.036), H. influenzae (rs = −0.922, P < 0.001), while trend toward an increase in the relative proportion of S. aureus (rs = 0.850, P < 0.001), S. agalactiae (rs = 0.615, P = 0.001), and S. pyogenes (rs = 0.554, P = 0.005).
Conclusion
In the proportion of IBIs over a 24-year period between 1996 and 2019, we observed a decreasing trend for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae and an increasing trend for S. aureus, S. agalactiae, and S. pyogenes in children > 3 months of age. These findings can be used as the baseline data to navigate the trend in the epidemiology of pediatric IBI in the post COVID-19 era.
6.Prognostic Implications of CT Feature Analysis in Patients with COVID-19:a Nationwide Cohort Study
Yeon Joo JEONG ; Bo Da NAM ; Jin Young YOO ; Kun-Il KIM ; Hee KANG ; Jung Hwa HWANG ; Yun-Hyeon KIM ; Kyung Soo LEE
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2021;36(8):e51-
Background:
Few studies have classified chest computed tomography (CT) findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and analyzed their correlations with prognosis. The present study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the clinical and chest CT findings of COVID-19 and to analyze CT findings and determine their relationships with clinical severity.
Methods:
Chest CT and clinical features of 271 COVID-19 patients were assessed. The presence of CT findings and distribution of parenchymal abnormalities were evaluated, and CT patterns were classified as bronchopneumonia, organizing pneumonia (OP), or diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). Total extents were assessed using a visual scoring system and artificial intelligence software. Patients were allocated to two groups based on clinical outcomes, that is, to a severe group (requiring O2 therapy or mechanical ventilation, n = 55) or a mild group (not requiring O2 therapy or mechanical ventilation, n = 216). Clinical and CT features of these two groups were compared and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors.
Results:
Age, lymphocyte count, levels of C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin were significantly different in the two groups. Forty-five of the 271 patients had normal chest CT findings. The most common CT findings among the remaining 226 patients were groundglass opacity (98%), followed by consolidation (53%). CT findings were classified as OP (93%), DAD (4%), or bronchopneumonia (3%) and all nine patients with DAD pattern were included in the severe group. Uivariate and multivariate analyses showed an elevated procalcitonin (odds ratio [OR], 2.521; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001–6.303, P = 0.048), and higher visual CT scores (OR, 1.137; 95% CI, 1.042–1.236; P = 0.003) or higher total extent by AI measurement (OR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.020–1.076; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with a severe clinical course.
Conclusion
CT findings of COVID-19 pneumonia can be classified into OP, DAD, or bronchopneumonia patterns and all patients with DAD pattern were included in severe group. Elevated inflammatory markers and higher CT scores were found to be significant predictors of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
7.Prognostic Implications of CT Feature Analysis in Patients with COVID-19:a Nationwide Cohort Study
Yeon Joo JEONG ; Bo Da NAM ; Jin Young YOO ; Kun-Il KIM ; Hee KANG ; Jung Hwa HWANG ; Yun-Hyeon KIM ; Kyung Soo LEE
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2021;36(8):e51-
Background:
Few studies have classified chest computed tomography (CT) findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and analyzed their correlations with prognosis. The present study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the clinical and chest CT findings of COVID-19 and to analyze CT findings and determine their relationships with clinical severity.
Methods:
Chest CT and clinical features of 271 COVID-19 patients were assessed. The presence of CT findings and distribution of parenchymal abnormalities were evaluated, and CT patterns were classified as bronchopneumonia, organizing pneumonia (OP), or diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). Total extents were assessed using a visual scoring system and artificial intelligence software. Patients were allocated to two groups based on clinical outcomes, that is, to a severe group (requiring O2 therapy or mechanical ventilation, n = 55) or a mild group (not requiring O2 therapy or mechanical ventilation, n = 216). Clinical and CT features of these two groups were compared and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors.
Results:
Age, lymphocyte count, levels of C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin were significantly different in the two groups. Forty-five of the 271 patients had normal chest CT findings. The most common CT findings among the remaining 226 patients were groundglass opacity (98%), followed by consolidation (53%). CT findings were classified as OP (93%), DAD (4%), or bronchopneumonia (3%) and all nine patients with DAD pattern were included in the severe group. Uivariate and multivariate analyses showed an elevated procalcitonin (odds ratio [OR], 2.521; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001–6.303, P = 0.048), and higher visual CT scores (OR, 1.137; 95% CI, 1.042–1.236; P = 0.003) or higher total extent by AI measurement (OR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.020–1.076; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with a severe clinical course.
Conclusion
CT findings of COVID-19 pneumonia can be classified into OP, DAD, or bronchopneumonia patterns and all patients with DAD pattern were included in severe group. Elevated inflammatory markers and higher CT scores were found to be significant predictors of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
8.Impacts of Recurrent Tonsillitis on the Outcome of Powered Intracapsular Tonsillectomy in Children
Jeong Wook KANG ; Sung Hwa DONG ; Seon Gyu LEE ; Kun Hee LEE
Journal of Rhinology 2021;28(3):164-170
Background and Objectives:
To investigate the effects of recurrent tonsillitis on postoperative outcomes after powered intracapsular tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (PITA) in children with obstructive sleep-disordered breathing (oSDB).
Materials and Methods:
Children who underwent PITA in Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong from 2016 to 2018 were classified into two oSDB groups according to comorbid chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis (CHT). To evaluate the efficacy of the PITA technique, quality of life (QoL) was measured using the obstructive sleep apnea questionnaire (OSA-18) for 3 months after surgery. To evaluate the disadvantages of the PITA technique, we followed complications such as throat pain, otalgia, nausea, vomiting, and postoperative bleeding for 1 week after surgery. Finally, we compared the pre- and postoperative QoL and analyzed the incidence of postoperative complications in the oSDB with CHT (SDBwCHT) and oSDB without CHT (SDBsCHT) groups.
Results:
Of the 802 enrolled patients, 135 were classified as SDBwCHT and 667 as SDBsCHT. Both groups exhibited marked improvements in QoL after PITA. The SDBwCHT group showed a change of OSA-18 score from 70.7±17.0 to 31.2±11.4. The SDBsCHT group showed a change of OSA-18 score from 70.0±17.1 to 31.0±9.9. The groups did not demonstrate statistical differences in complication rates and severity of symptoms during the first postoperative week.
Conclusion
Although comorbid CHT delayed improvement in postoperative symptoms, PITA is a useful technique to treat children with oSDB, regardless of CHT.
9.Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Detemir Administered Once Daily According to Two Titration Algorithms (3-0-3 and 2-4-6-8) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Hea Min YU ; Kang Seo PARK ; Jun Hwa HONG ; Keun Yong PARK ; Jong Min LEE ; Bon Jeong KU ; Yeo Joo KIM ; Tae Kun OH
Endocrinology and Metabolism 2020;35(1):142-148
BACKGROUND:
This study was conducted to compare glycaemic control with insulin detemir administered according to two titration algorithms (3-0-3 and 2-4-6-8) after 20 weeks of treatment in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin.
METHODS:
This was a 20-week, randomised, multicentre, open-labelled, treat-to-target trial. Forty-six patients were randomised in a 1:1 manner to either the 3-0-3 (G3, n=23) or 2-4-6-8 (G2, n=23) algorithm. The primary endpoint was change of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and the secondary safety endpoint included hypoglycaemic events.
RESULTS:
After 20 weeks, HbA1c decreased similarly in the G3 and G2 groups, with a mean change of −0.9% from baseline. The mean change in fasting plasma glucose was numerically similar in both groups. The hypoglycaemia event rate per 100-patient-years of exposure (r) in the G2 group (r=1,427) was higher than that in the G3 group (r=807).
CONCLUSION
Both treatment groups had numerically similar HbA1c reductions. A trend towards fewer hypoglycaemia episodes after dose stabilisation was seen with the simpler G3. Clinically, this may be an important observation, as a simpler titration algorithm may support self-management and maintenance of insulin therapy.
10.Erratum: Addition of a Co-Author: Etiology of Invasive Bacterial Infections in Immunocompetent Children in Korea (2006–2010): a Retrospective Multicenter Study
Kyuyol RHIE ; Eun Hwa CHOI ; Eun Young CHO ; Jina LEE ; Jin Han KANG ; Dong Soo KIM ; Yae Jean KIM ; Youngmin AHN ; Byung Wook EUN ; Sung Hee OH ; Sung Ho CHA ; Young Jin HONG ; Kwang Nam KIM ; Nam Hee KIM ; Yun Kyung KIM ; Jong Hyun KIM ; Taekjin LEE ; Hwang Min KIM ; Kun Song LEE ; Chun Soo KIM ; Su Eun PARK ; Young Mi KIM ; Chi Eun OH ; Sang Hyuk MA ; Dae Sun JO ; Young Youn CHOI ; Hoan Jong LEE
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2019;34(25):e182-
The authors regret that one co-author (Kyung-Hyo Kim) was missing in the article.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail