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: We evaluated the short-term efficacy and safety of hyaluronic acid (HA) eye drops over a 1-month observational period in patients treated with different HA concentrations for dry eye disease. Methods: This prospective, non-interventional, multicenter observational study included patients aged ≥ 19 years who were diagnosed with dry eye at participating medical institutions and treated with HA eye drops (Xenobella SD; ChongKunDang Pharm., Seoul, Korea). In total, 886 eyes from 886 patients were analyzed. Efficacy was evaluated by changes in tear film break-up time (TBUT), ocular surface staining score, dry eye severity, ocular discomfort scale, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) from baseline to 1 month after treatment. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess efficacy according to age, contact lens use, and HA concentration. Safety was evaluated using a questionnaire on adverse events. Results: After 1 month of treatment, all dry eye parameters―ocular surface staining score, TBUT, ocular discomfort scale, OSDI, and dry eye severity―improved significantly. Subgroup analyses revealed greater improvement in selected parameters, including TBUT, among patients <60 years, contact lens users, and those treated with higher concentrations of HA (0.18% or 0.3%), compared to patients aged ≥60 years, non–contact lens users, and those receiving the lower concentration of HA (0.1%). Only five mild adverse events were reported. Conclusions This 1-month observational study demonstrated that HA eye drops significantly improved both signs and symptoms of dry eye with minimal adverse events. Therapeutic benefits were more pronounced in younger patients, contact lens users, and those treated with higher HA concentrations (≥0.18%).

Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) is a zoonotic arbovirus transmitted by mosquitoes and poses a significant public health concern. JEV is classified into 5 genotypes (G1–G5). Since 2010, JEV genotype 5 (G5) has been predominant in the Republic of Korea; however, a specific antigen for hemagglutination (HA) inhibition (HI) assays has been lacking. This study aimed to develop a novel antigen to enable genotype-specific HI antibody detection for JEV G5. The Sangju strain of JEV G5 was serially passaged 30 times in Vero and C6/36 cells, resulting in Sangju-30, which exhibited 2 envelope protein mutations and an HA titer of 8, increasing to 512 following polyethylene glycol 8000 concentration. The antigen demonstrated a strong correlation (R = 0.95, p < 0.05, 95% confidence interval, 6.3–31.9) with HI antibody levels in pig sera. These findings suggest that the Sangju-30 antigen is a viable alternative for JEV G5 serological monitoring, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and offering a replacement for traditional murine-derived antigen production.

Background: Despite the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, limited data exist on their perceived benefits and challenges among patients and healthcare providers. This study explored CGM-related experiences in South Korea. Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted between January and December 2021 at four university hospitals. Respondents included patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), physicians, and DM education nurses. The survey assessed the use of CGM, its benefits, and barriers. Most devices were first-generation CGMs: FreeStyle Libre 1 (Abbott Diabetes Care), Dexcom G6 (Dexcom Inc.), and Medtronic Guardian 3 (Medtronic MiniMed). Results: Among 1,010 patients (33.4% with type 1 DM [T1DM], 63.6% with type 2 DM [T2DM], and 3.1% others; mean age, 51.4±14.6 years), 92.7% found CGM helpful. Although 59.6% reported discomfort, 81.9% intended to continue using CGM, indicating that perceived benefits outweighed barriers. The key advantages were glucose monitoring without finger pricks (T1DM, 57.9%; T2DM, 56.2%) and maintenance of target glucose levels. Discomfort was related to discomfort during activities (53.8%), skin problems (45.0%), and pain (43.0%). Healthcare provider recommendations were associated with reduced discomfort (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.60). Physicians (n=29) cited high costs as the main barrier (T1DM, 58.9%; T2DM, 64.8%); only 51.9% and 14.5% prescribed CGM for T1DM and T2DM, respectively. Insulin adjustment and glucose control were the main reasons for prescription, while cost (89.3%) and limited consultation time (67.9%) were barriers. DM educators (n=9) reported heavy workloads, with training and follow-up times averaging 31.7±7.5 minutes and 21.7±9.7 minutes, respectively; 77.8% of DM educators identified frequent patient inquiries as their greatest burden. Conclusion CGM provides significant clinical benefits but is limited by discomfort, costs, and educational burden. Sustained adoption requires device improvements, insurance support, and workforce expansion.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Objective: The nationwide rehabilitation at-home care pilot program aims to provide medical services such as education, counseling, and remote management to patients who require continuous medical management after surgery. This study aims to retrospectively analyze the medical records of patients who participated in the project after knee arthroplasty to investigate the effectiveness of rehabilitation education in home-based care. Method: Data for analysis were collected from the evaluation form which is completed by the physician immediately after surgery and outpatient follow-up. The collected data included the patient’s sex, age, pre-operative functional level, surgical site, and scores on the berg balance scale (BBS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for evaluating pain. If patients were re-admitted to other medical institutions for rehabilitation, data on the duration of their stay were collected for further analysis. Results: A total of 234 patients were selected and their data were analyzed. The average change in the BBS (ΔBBS) between immediately after surgery and outpatient follow-up was 43.34 ± 5.51, while the average change in the VAS (ΔVAS) was −0.77 ± 2.27. A significant positive correlation (p=0.001) was found between pre-operative functional level and ΔBBS or ΔVAS. However, no significant correlation (p=0.554) was observed between the duration of stay in other medical institutions and ΔBBS or ΔVAS. Conclusion The home care pilot program is effective in promoting functional recovery and pain relief after knee arthroplasty. It is expected that appropriate rehabilitation education, remote management, and follow-up observation for up to 6 months will sufficiently replace long-term inpatient treatment after knee arthroplasty.

Background: and Purpose Patients with cluster headache (CH) exhibit impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, there have been few studies related to the HRQoL of patients with CH from Asian backgrounds. This study aimed to determine the impact of CH on HRQoL and to identify the factors affecting HRQoL in patients with CH during cluster periods. Methods: This prospective study enrolled patients with CH from 17 headache clinics in South Korea between September 2016 and February 2021. The study aimed to determine HRQoL in patients with CH using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index and the time trade-off (TTO) method. Age- and sex-matched headache-free participants were recruited as a control group. Results: The study included 423 patients with CH who experienced a cluster period at the time. EQ-5D scores were lower in patients with CH (0.88±0.43, mean±standard deviation) than in the controls (0.99±0.33, p<0.001). The TTO method indicated that 58 (13.6%) patients with CH exhibited moderate-to-severe HRQoL deterioration. The HRQoL states in patients with CH were associated with current smoking patterns, headache severity, frequency, and duration, and scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), 6-item Headache Impact Test, and 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the HRQoL states in patients with CH were negatively correlated with the daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, and GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores. Conclusions Patients with CH experienced a worse quality of life during cluster periods compared with the headache-free controls, but the degree of HRQoL deterioration varied among them. The daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, anxiety, and depression were factors associated with HRQoL deterioration severity in patients with CH.

Background: and Purpose Oxygen treatment is the first-line acute treatment for cluster headaches (CHs), but this can be impeded by insurance coverage and oxygen-tank maintenance. Oxygen concentrators filter nitrogen from ambient air to produce oxygen-rich gas, and can therefore be an alternative to conventional oxygen therapy using a tank. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of using two home oxygen concentrators and compared them with using oral zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of CHs. Methods: Forty patients with episodic CHs in an active cluster period were enrolled in this randomized, crossover, multicenter study. Two attacks during the cluster period were treated using oxygen delivered by connecting two home oxygen concentrators, whereas the other two attacks were treated using oral zolmitriptan (5 mg) in a random sequence. The primary endpoint was substantial pain reduction (0 or 1 on a five-point rating scale from 0 to 4 points) at 15 min after treatment. Results: In total, 125 attacks among 32 patients were randomized and treated (63 attacks using oxygen and 62 using zolmitriptan) according to the study protocol. More attacks treated using oxygen reached the primary endpoint than did those treated using zolmitriptan (31.7% [20/63] vs. 12.9% [8/62], p=0.013). After 30 min, 57.1% of the patients who received oxygen and 38.7% who received zolmitriptan reported pain relief (p=0.082). All patients treated using oxygen reported an improvement in pain, and 61.3% preferred oxygen while only 9.7% preferred zolmitriptan. No adverse events occurred during the oxygen treatment. Conclusions Oxygen treatment administered using two home oxygen concentrators resulted in better pain relief than oral zolmitriptan in patients with episodic CHs. Our results suggest that home oxygen concentrators are capable of efficiently supplying oxygen in a similar manner to using an oxygen tank.