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 study aimed to investigate the role of peripheral NLR family pyrin domain-containing 3 protein (NLRP3) in inflammatory pain development in the orofacial area. Male Sprague–Dawley rats were used in experiments, with orofacial formalin-induced pain behavior and complete Freund’s adjuvant (CFA)-induced thermal hyperalgesia as chronic inflammatory pain models. Administration of 5% formalin produced biphasic nociceptive behavior, and subcutaneous pretreatment with MCC950 (50 and 100 μg/50 μL), an NLRP3 inhibitor, remarkably attenuated nociceptive behavior during the second phase. Subcutaneous CFA injection induced thermal hyperalgesia 1 day after injection, which persisted for 7 days. Five days after CFA injection, subcutaneous treatment with MCC950 (50 and 100 μg/50 μL) significantly attenuated thermal hyperalgesia. Additionally, subcutaneous injection of BMS-986299 (50 and 100 μg/50 μL), an NLRP3 agonist, induced significant nociceptive behavior for 1 hour in naïve rats. Pretreatment with an interleukin-1β (IL-1β) receptor antagonist blocked the nociceptive behavior produced by subcutaneous injection of BMS-986299 (100 μg/50 μL);however, treatment with a hypoxia-inducible factor 1α inhibitor did not. These findings suggest the involvement of the peripheral NLRP3 and IL-1β pathway in chronic inflammatory pain development in the orofacial area, highlighting the potential of blocking this pathway as a strategy for developing future inflammatory pain treatment drugs.

Purpose: We evaluated the characteristics of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein α (CEBPA) mutations and the significance of a basic leucine zipper in-frame mutation (bZIPin-f) of CEBPA in patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a normal karyotype. Materials and Methods: Based on updated knowledge of CEBPA mutations, we conducted next-generation sequencing analyses in a previously established real-world cohort. Results: Among 78 of a total of 395 patients (19.7%), 50 had bZIPin-f CEBPA, and 28 had non-bZIPin-f CEBPA. In the multivariate analysis, patients with NPM1mut, those with bZIPin-f CEBPA, and those who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) had favorable overall survival (OS), but FLT3-ITDmut was a poor prognostic indicator. For relapse-free survival (RFS) and cumulative incidence of relapse, bZIPin-f CEBPA, and allo-HCT were associated with favorable outcomes; FLT3-ITDpos was associated with worse outcomes. In the CEBPA double-mutated group (CEBPAdm), bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with superior outcomes in terms of OS (p=0.007) and RFS (p=0.007) compared with non-bZIPin-f CEBPA. Of 50 patients with bZIPin-f CEBPA, 36 patients had at least one mutation. When grouped by the presence of mutations in chromatic/DNA modifiers (C), cohesion complex (C), and splicing genes (S) (CCS mutations), CCS-mutated bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with poor OS (p=0.044; hazard ratio [HR], 2.419) and a trend in inferior RFS (p=0.186; HR, 1.838). Conclusion Only bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with favorable outcomes in patients with CEBPAdm. However, some mutations accompanying bZIPin-f CEBPA showed inferior OS; thus, further studies with larger numbers of patients are required for clear conclusions of the significance of bZIPin-f CEBPA.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Background/Aims: We evaluated the role of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based disease monitoring for elderly patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who received decitabine therapy. Methods: A total of 123 patients aged > 65 years with AML who received decitabine were eligible. We analyzed the dynamics of variant allele frequency (VAF) in 49 available follow-up samples after the fourth cycle of decitabine. The 58.6% VAF clearance (Δ, [VAF at diagnosis − VAF at follow-up] × 100 / VAF at diagnosis) was the optimal cut-off for predicting overall survival (OS). Results: The overall response rate was 34.1% (eight patients with complete remission [CR], six of CR with incomplete hematologic recovery, 22 with partial responses, and six with morphologic leukemia-free status). Responders (n = 42) had significantly better OS compared with non-responders (n = 42) (median, 15.3 months vs. 6.5 months; p < 0.001). Of the 49 patients available for follow-up targeted NGS analysis, 44 had trackable gene mutations. The median OS of patients with ΔVAF ≥ 58.6% (n=24) was significantly better than that of patients with ΔVAF < 58.6% (n = 19) (20.5 months vs. 9.8 months, p = 0.010). Moreover, responders with ΔVAF ≥ 58.6% (n = 20) had a significantly longer median OS compared with responders with VAF < 58.6% (n = 11) (22.5 months vs. 9.8 months, p = 0.004). Conclusions This study suggested that combining ΔVAF ≥ 58.6%, a molecular response, with morphologic and hematologic responses can more accurately predict OS in elderly AML patients after decitabine therapy.

Background: and Purpose We investigated the impact of comorbidity burden on troponin elevation, with separate consideration of neurological conditions, in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: This prospective, observational cohort study consecutively enrolled patients with AIS for 2 years. Serum cardiac troponin I was repeatedly measured, and disease-related biomarkers were collected for diagnosis of preassigned comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation (AF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), myocardial hypertrophy (MH), heart failure (HF), renal insufficiency (RI), and active cancer. The severity of neurological deficits and insular cortical ischemic lesions were assessed as neurological conditions. Adjusted associations between these factors and troponin elevation were determined using a multivariate ordinal logistic regression model and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the prognostic significance of comorbidity beyond neurological conditions. Results: Among 1,092 patients (66.5±12.4 years, 63.3% male), 145 (13.3%) and 335 (30.7%) had elevated (≥0.040 ng/mL) and minimally-elevated (0.040–0.010 ng/mL) troponin, respectively. In the adjusted analysis, AF, MH, HF, RI, active cancer, and neurological deficits were associated with troponin elevation. The multivariate model with six comorbidities and two neurological conditions exhibited an AUC of 0.729 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.698–0.759). In Cox regression, AF, IHD, and HF were associated with adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events, whereas HF and active cancer were associated with mortality. Conclusion Troponin elevation in patients with AIS can be explained by the burden of comorbidities in combination with neurological status, which explains the prognostic significance of troponin assay.

Purpose: K-MASTER project is a Korean national precision medicine platform that screened actionable mutations by analyzing next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumor patients. We compared gene analyses between NGS panel from the K-MASTER project and orthogonal methods. Materials and Methods: Colorectal, breast, non–small cell lung, and gastric cancer patients were included. We compared NGS results from K-MASTER projects with those of non-NGS orthogonal methods (KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer [CRC]; epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR], anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] fusion, and reactive oxygen species 1 [ROS1] fusion in non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], and Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) positivity in breast and gastric cancers). Results: In the CRC cohort (n=225), the sensitivity and specificity of NGS were 87.4% and 79.3% (KRAS); 88.9% and 98.9% (NRAS); and 77.8% and 100.0% (BRAF), respectively. In the NSCLC cohort (n=109), the sensitivity and specificity of NGS for EGFR were 86.2% and 97.5%, respectively. The concordance rate for ALK fusion was 100%, but ROS1 fusion was positive in only one of three cases that were positive in orthogonal tests. In the breast cancer cohort (n=260), ERBB2 amplification was detected in 45 by NGS. Compared with orthogonal methods that integrated immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization, sensitivity and specificity were 53.7% and 99.4%, respectively. In the gastric cancer cohort (n=64), ERBB2 amplification was detected in six by NGS. Compared with orthogonal methods, sensitivity and specificity were 62.5% and 98.2%, respectively. Conclusion The results of the K-MASTER NGS panel and orthogonal methods showed a different degree of agreement for each genetic alteration, but generally showed a high agreement rate.