Background: This study investigated the relationship between work-life balance (WLB), effort-reward imbalance (ERI), and presenteeism among Korean wageworkers through two models used simultaneously. Methods: Data from the 6th Korean Working Conditions Survey for 28,669 Korean workers, including 13,513 men and 15,156 women, were analyzed. All analyses were performed with pre-designed weight. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the association between WLB, ERI, and presenteeism among Korean workers. The participants were classified into the following four groups: group 1, status of both WLB and ERI is “balanced”; group 2, WLB and ERI status are “imbalanced” and “balanced”, respectively; group 3, WLB and ERI status are “balanced” and “imbalanced”, respectively; group 4: status of both WLB and ERI is “imbalanced.” Results: We found that WLB and ERI were associated with presenteeism in both men and women. Depending on their WLB and ERI status, women generally had a higher tendency of presenteeism than men. Multiple logistic regression shows that, in most models and groups, there is an increased odds ratio (OR) for presenteeism in both men and women compared to the reference value. Moreover, the OR in both men and women gradually increased in groups 2, 3, and 4 compared with group 1. When considering both WLB and ERI status simultaneously, ERI had a greater impact on presenteeism than WLB. Furthermore, it was found that a synergistic effect of presenteeism manifests when both WLB and ERI are in a state of imbalance simultaneously. Conclusions Using the two models simultaneously, we found an association between WLB, ERI, and presenteeism according to sex with a synergistic effect among Korean workers. Our research suggests that active interventions targeting WLB and ERI are necessary to reduce presenteeism, which ultimately leads to decreased productivity.

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend vaccination at least 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation to optimize the immune response despite limited evidence. Our previous study indicated no differences in short-term immune response for the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) according to the vaccination timing. This study aims to investigate the long-term efficacy of PCV13 and clinical factors associated with the respective antibody response. Materials and Methods: Patients with gastric or colorectal cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled and divided into two groups: vaccinated 2 weeks before chemotherapy (arm A) and vaccinated concurrently with chemotherapy (arm B). Serum samples were collected before vaccination and in one month, 3 years, and 5 years. Immune responses were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and multiplex opsonophagocytosis assay. Results: Including 63 patients, both groups showed an initial increase in the geometric mean titers of opsonophagocytic activity and the geometric mean concentrations of serotype-specific IgG levels after one month, followed by a decline at 3 and 5 years, particularly for serotypes 1, 14, 18C, and 19A. Despite the decline, global protection was maintained for 5 years, although global response decreased. The two arms did not show significant differences in immunogenicity nor in factors such as vaccination timing, age, cancer type, or chemotherapy regimen. Conclusion Vaccination timing is not a significant factor for the immunogenicity of PCV13 in cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. Global protection against pneumococcal infection was sustained for > 5 years, and global response remained in over half of 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.

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.

A 68-year-old man with no significant medical history was referred for evaluation of incidentally detected hepatic and splenic lesions found during imaging for rib fractures. Cross-sectional imaging with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and fluorodeoxyglucose F18 positron-emitting tomography revealed multiple variable-sized masses in the liver and spleen. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using Sonazoid showed mild arterial enhancement, early washout, and a corresponding perfusion defect in the delayed (Kupffer) phase. Ultrasound- guided liver biopsy confirmed Burkitt lymphoma. The patient received systemic chemotherapy, resulting in marked regression of hepatic and splenic lesions on follow-up imaging. This case highlights the diagnostic value of CEUS in characterizing atypical hepatic lesions and its potential to raise early suspicion for lymphoma, facilitating timely biopsy and management.