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: Processing methods for hematopoietic stem cells vary significantly across institutions, with no standardized guidelines currently in place. This lack of standardization presents challenges in ensuring consistent quality and out‑ comes of stem cell transplantation procedures. This study investigated current practices in peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) processing and storage among transplant centers in Korea to establish a foundation for the development of standardized guidelines. Methods: A comprehensive questionnaire was distributed to 46 hematopoietic stem cell transplantation centers in Korea, examining five key areas: PBSC collection procedures, use of cryopreservatives, cryopreservation protocols, quality control measures, and thawing protocols. Results: Analysis of the 29 responses revealed significant variations across different stages of PBSC handling. All centers used controlled-rate freezers, and 92.9% stored cells at temperatures below -150 ◦ C . However, other prac‑ tices varied widely. Additional post-collection processing was performed by 53.8% of respondents. DMSO concen‑ trations ranged from 5 to 15%, with diverse combinations of supplementary media. Notably, 28.6% of patients did not undergo post-thaw quality assessment tests. Conclusion This study identified significant heterogeneity in PBSC processing practices across Korean transplant centers. These findings underscore the need for evidence-based standardized guidelines to ensure consistent product quality and improve transplantation outcomes.

Background: This study aimed to document the patterns, challenges, and opportunities for biobank utilization within the Female Breast and Genital Disease with Microbiome Biobank Network (FDMNet) in South Korea. Annual surveys (2022–2024) assessed researcher awareness, utilization patterns, barriers to access, research requirements, and interest in microbiome research. Methods: Online questionnaires were distributed to staff members at five university hospitals participating in FDMNet. Data from 155 respondents across 3 years were analyzed using descriptive statistics for quantitative data. Qualitative feedback was examined using Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection and natural language processing to identify the thematic clusters of user challenges. Results: Despite high engagement with biobank resources (76% of the respondents), declining participation rates and interinstitutional collaborations were observed, particularly in 2024, amid the nationwide healthcare crisis. The major barriers to utilization included complex access procedures (31.0%), lack of process knowledge (23.9%), and concerns about Institutional Review Board approval (11.6%). Breast neoplasms (12.3%) and female genital neoplasms (11.0%) were the primary research interests, with blood (24.5%) and tissue (23.9%) samples being the most requested specimens. Most respondents (66.5%) expressed interest in microbiome research but reported insufficient knowledge. Conclusion These findings highlight the need for streamlined access procedures, improved researcher education, enhanced clinical data integration, and stronger governance structures to overcome existing barriers to biobank utilization. These insights can guide strategic improvements in biobank operations and resource allocation to serve the evolving needs of the research community better.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.