Background: s/Aims: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the standard treatment for periampullary tumors, but it is technically challenging. Evidence directly comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic, and hybrid approaches is limited. This study conducts a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open PD (OPD), laparoscopic PD (LPD), robotic PD (RPD), and hybrid PD. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1994 and August 2024.We included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies that evaluated at least two PD approaches. Perioperative outcomes were the primary endpoints, while oncologic safety served as a secondary endpoint. A random-effects NMA was performed, establishing treatment hierarchies through ranking probabilities (PROSPERO ID: CRD420250365864). Results: A total of 78 studies were included (5 randomized and 73 retrospective). RPD was associated with lower blood loss compared to OPD (mean difference [MD], –163.85 mL) and LPD (MD, –84.14 mL). Hospital stays were also shorter for RPD compared to OPD (MD, –2.50 days) and LPD (MD, –1.88 days). In contrast, OPD was the most time-efficient approach compared to LPD (MD, –77.61 minutes) and RPD (MD, –73.30 minutes). Mortality rates, severe complications, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, and reoperation rates were comparable across all surgical approaches. In terms of oncologic safety, lymph node yield and R0 resection rates were similar for all modalities. Conclusions While OPD is the most time-efficient approach, RPD provides significant advantages in reducing intraoperative blood loss and shortening hospital stays compared to both LPD and OPD.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate changes in the proportion of patients receiving palliative sedation (PS) before and after the mass resignation of junior physicians in South Korea. Methods: This single-center retrospective chart review included patients who died between February 19, 2023 and August 18, 2024. We retrospectively identified patients who were prescribed sedatives such as midazolam outside the intensive care unit on the day of death and classified them as having received PS. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test, while continuous variables were compared using the Student’s t-test. Results: In the year before resignation, 78 of the 745 deceased patients (10.5%) received PS; whereas in the subsequent six months, 24 of the 237 patients (10.1%) received PS. No statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients receiving PS between the two periods. Conclusion The proportion of patients receiving PS did not show a significant difference, despite the disruption caused by the mass resignation of junior physicians.

Systemic therapy remains the cornerstone of managing advanced gastric cancer (AGC). For patients with unresectable or metastatic AGC, it is essential for extending survival and alleviating symptoms.Current Concepts: Cytotoxic chemotherapy, historically centered on fluoropyrimidines, platinum agents, taxanes, and irinotecan, continues to form the treatment foundation. More recently, targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have reshaped therapeutic strategies. Combination regimens incorporating nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or tislelizumab with chemotherapy have improved outcomes in HER2-negative AGC, particularly among patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1–positive or microsatellite instability-high/deficient mismatch repair tumors. Zolbetuximab, which targets CLDN18.2, has also shown clinically meaningful benefit in CLDN18.2-positive disease. In HER2-positive AGC, trastuzumab remains the therapeutic backbone, with findings from the KEYNOTE-811 trial supporting the addition of pembrolizumab to trastuzumab-based chemotherapy. In the second-line setting, ramucirumab plus paclitaxel is preferred, and trastuzumab deruxtecan provides benefit in previously treated HER2-positive patients. Later-line options include trifluridine/tipiracil, nivolumab, and trastuzumab deruxtecan.Discussion and Conclusion: The treatment landscape for AGC is rapidly evolving toward biomarker-driven precision oncology. Incorporating ICIs, targeted agents, and optimized treatment strategies has transformed management and enabled more individualized, effective, and less invasive therapeutic approaches.

Purpose: BVAC-B is an autologous B cell– and monocyte-based immunotherapeutic vaccine that contains cells transfected with a recombinant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene and loaded with the natural killer T cell ligand alpha-galactosylceramide. Here, we report the first BVAC-B study in patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: Patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to standard treatment with HER2+ immunohistochemistry ≥ 1 were eligible for treatment. Patients were administered low (2.5×107 cells/dose), medium (5.0×107 cells/dose), or high dose (1.0×108 cells/dose) of BVAC-B intravenously four times every 4 weeks. Primary endpoints included safety and maximum tolerated BVAC-B dose. Secondary endpoints included preliminary clinical efficacy and BVAC-B-induced immune responses. Results: Eight patients were treated with BVAC-B at low (n=1), medium (n=1), and high doses (n=6). No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, while treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed in patients treated with medium and high doses. The most common TRAEs were grade 1 (n=2) and grade 2 (n=2) fever. Out of the six patients treated with high-dose BVAC-B, three had stable disease with no response. Interferon gamma, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interleukin-6 increased after BVAC-B treatment in all patients with medium and high dose, and HER2-specific antibody was detected in some patients. Conclusion BVAC-B monotherapy had a safe toxicity profile with limited clinical activity; however, it activated immune cells in heavily pretreated patients with HER2-positive gastric cancer. Earlier treatment with BVAC-B and combination therapy is warranted for evaluation of clinical efficacy.

Purpose: Varlitinib is a pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) inhibitor targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and HER4. We present a phase Ib/II study of a combination of varlitinib and weekly paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Materials and Methods: Patients whose tumors with EGFR and HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry (≥ 1+) were enrolled. Varlitinib and paclitaxel were investigated every 4 weeks. After determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in phase Ib, a phase II study was conducted to evaluate the antitumor activity. Results: RP2D was treated with a combination of varlitinib (300 mg twice daily) and paclitaxel. Among 27 patients treated with RP2D, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 3.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 4.9) and 7.9 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 10.8), respectively, with a median follow-up of 15.7 months. Among 16 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were 31% and 88%, respectively. Patients with strong HER2 expression (n=8) had a higher ORR and longer OS, whereas those with strong EGFR expression (n=3) had poorer outcomes. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade were neutropenia (52%), diarrhea (27%), aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transaminase elevation (22%), and nausea (19%). No treatment-related deaths or unexpected AEs resulting from treatment cessation were observed in patients with RP2D. Conclusion A combination of varlitinib and paclitaxel displayed manageable toxicity and modest antitumor activity in patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing AGC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy.

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.

Although most patients prefer dying at home, patients whose condition rapidly becomes critical need care in the intensive care unit (ICU), and it is rare for them to die at home with their families. Therefore, interest in hospice and palliative care for patients in the ICU is increasing. Hospice and palliative care (PC) is necessary for all patients with life-threatening diseases. The following patients need palliative care in the ICU: patients with chronic critical illnesses who need tracheostomy, percutaneous gastrostomy tube, and extracorporeal life support; patients aged 80 years or older; stage 4 cancer patients; patients with specific acute diseases with a poor prognosis (e.g., anoxic brain injury and intracerebral hemorrhage requiring mechanical ventilation); and patients for whom the attending physician expects a poor prognosis. There are two PC models—a consultative model and an integrative model—in the ICU setting. Since these two models have advantages and disadvantages, it is necessary to apply the model that best fits each hospital’s circumstances. Furthermore, interdisciplinary decision-making between the ICU care team and PC specialists should be strengthened to increase the provision of hospice and palliative care services for patients expected to have poor outcomes and their families.

Purpose: We aimed to assess the humoral response to and reactogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination according to the vaccine type and to analyze factors associated with immunogenicity in actively treated solid cancer patients (CPs). Materials and Methods: Prospective cohorts of CPs, undergoing anticancer treatment, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were established. The participants had no history of previous COVID-19 and received either mRNA-based or adenovirus vector–based (AdV) vaccines as the primary series. Blood samples were collected before the first vaccination and after 2 weeks for each dose vaccination. Spike-specific binding antibodies (bAbs) in all participants and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) wild-type, Delta, and Omicron variants in CPs were analyzed and presented as the geometric mean titer. Results: Age-matched 20 HCWs and 118 CPs were included in the analysis. The bAb seroconversion rate and antibody concentrations after the first vaccination were significantly lower in CPs than in HCWs. After the third vaccination, antibody levels in CPs with a primary series of AdV were comparable to those in HCWs, but nAb titers against the Omicron variant did not quantitatively increase in CPs with AdV vaccine as the primary series. The incidence and severity of adverse reactions post-vaccination were similar between CPs and HCWs. Conclusion CPs displayed delayed humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The booster dose elicited comparable bAb concentrations between CPs and HCWs, regardless of the primary vaccine type. Neutralization against the Omicron variant was not robustly elicited following the booster dose in some CPs, implying the need for additional interventions to protect them from COVID-19.

Purpose: Gastric cancer (GC) is among the most prevalent and fatal cancers worldwide.National cancer screening programs in countries with high incidences of this disease provide medical aid beneficiaries with free-of-charge screening involving upper endoscopy to detect early-stage GC. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to routine healthcare access. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, overall incidence, and stage distribution of GC. Materials and Methods: We identified patients in our hospital cancer registry who were diagnosed with GC between January 2018 and December 2021 and compared the cancer stage at diagnosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to age and sex. The years 2018 and 2019 were defined as the “before COVID” period, and the years 2020 and 2021 as the “during COVID” period. Results: Overall, 10,875 patients were evaluated; 6,535 and 4,340 patients were diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 period, respectively. The number of diagnoses was lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (189 patients/month vs. 264 patients/month) than before it.Notably, the proportion of patients with stages 3 or 4 GC in 2021 was higher among men and patients aged ≥40 years. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall number of GC diagnoses decreased significantly in a single institute. Moreover, GCs were in more advanced stages at the time of diagnosis. Further studies are required to elucidate the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay in the detection of GC worldwide.