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: The diagnosis and management of cardiovascular diseases are important for pilots, as well as the assessment of workload. Heart rate variability (HRV) can be evaluated from electrocardiography (ECG) signals during flight phases to assess the activation of the autonomic nervous system. Methods: In this study, continuous ECG activity was recorded of one pilot who flied as a pilot flying during a 4-hour long round trip using wearable ECG machine and was analyzed with MATLAB (R2020b ver. 9.9, The Mathworks Inc.). Total flight was divided into five phases: preflight, take off, cruise, landing, and postflight. Results: Mean heart rate (HR) was lowest in the postflight phase (76 bpm), and highest in the landing phase (86 bpm). Landing phase showed the highest values in standard deviation of NN interval (59.3 ms), triangular index (11.7), and triangular interpolation of NN interval (195 ms), while the postflight phase had highest root mean square of successive difference (20.5 ms) and proportion of successive RR interval (3.4 ms). As for frequency-domain metrics, the landing phase had the highest lowfrequency/high-frequency ratio of 5.33. Among the non-linear HRV measures, the landing phase presented the lowest SD1/SD2 ratio (0.15). Conclusion We observed the relative increase of mean HR and change of HRV in the landing phase, indicating elevated sympathetic nervous tone. Further studies should be considered to evaluate specific changes of ECG signals in flight phases and confirm the clinical use of the MATLAB signal analysis tools.

Purpose: The aim was to conduct a three-dimensional comparison of impacted canines with their contralateral normal counterparts in patients exhibiting unilateral buccal impaction of the maxillary canine, utilizing the palatal plane as the benchmark reference. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography scans from a cohort of 31 patients diagnosed with unilateral buccal impaction of the maxillary canine were analyzed. The impacted canine was examined against the contralateral normal canine, focusing on the variables of rotation, torque, angulation, root length, and root volume. The disparities in these parameters between the left and right canines and their association with patient age were evaluated. Results: Notable differences were observed in rotation, angulation, torque, root length, and root volume when comparing the impacted canine to its contralateral normal counterpart.Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was identified between the age of the patients and the root length discrepancy of the impacted and contralateral normal canines. Conclusion The palatal plane proves to be a viable skeletal reference for predicting the impaction of maxillary canines, with rotation, angulation, and torque serving as reliable indicators. The study further elucidates that the unilateral buccally impacted maxillary canine is characterized by a discernibly shorter root length and diminished root volume in comparison to the contralateral normal canine.

Purpose: The diagnosis and management of cardiovascular diseases are important for pilots, as well as the assessment of workload. Heart rate variability (HRV) can be evaluated from electrocardiography (ECG) signals during flight phases to assess the activation of the autonomic nervous system. Methods: In this study, continuous ECG activity was recorded of one pilot who flied as a pilot flying during a 4-hour long round trip using wearable ECG machine and was analyzed with MATLAB (R2020b ver. 9.9, The Mathworks Inc.). Total flight was divided into five phases: preflight, take off, cruise, landing, and postflight. Results: Mean heart rate (HR) was lowest in the postflight phase (76 bpm), and highest in the landing phase (86 bpm). Landing phase showed the highest values in standard deviation of NN interval (59.3 ms), triangular index (11.7), and triangular interpolation of NN interval (195 ms), while the postflight phase had highest root mean square of successive difference (20.5 ms) and proportion of successive RR interval (3.4 ms). As for frequency-domain metrics, the landing phase had the highest lowfrequency/high-frequency ratio of 5.33. Among the non-linear HRV measures, the landing phase presented the lowest SD1/SD2 ratio (0.15). Conclusion We observed the relative increase of mean HR and change of HRV in the landing phase, indicating elevated sympathetic nervous tone. Further studies should be considered to evaluate specific changes of ECG signals in flight phases and confirm the clinical use of the MATLAB signal analysis tools.