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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

Early-life stress (ELS) is a major contributor to neurodevelopmental vulnerability, particularly within the dentate gyrus (DG), where oxidative burden and microglial activation disrupt adult neurogenesis. Here, we examined whether N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a cysteine prodrug and glutathione precursor, could counteract impaired neurogenesis induced by neonatal maternal separation (NMS). Adolescent NAC administration restored the number of Ki67 + proliferating progenitors and DCX + immature neurons in the DG of NMS rats, accompanied by reduced reactive oxygen species, suppressed iNOS induction, and attenuated microglial activation. NAC also normalized EAAC1 expression, indicating enhanced neuronal antioxidant capacity. Notably, NAC rescued diminished neurogenesis in EAAC1 knockout mice, demonstrating its efficacy under both stress-induced and transporter-deficient redox imbalance. These findings identify NAC as a potent modulator of hippocampal neuroplasticity, acting through the restoration of redox and inflammatory homeostasis, and support its potential as an early therapeutic strategy to mitigate long-lasting neurodevelopmental consequences of ELS.

Purpose: Evaluating the role of preoperative axillary ultrasound (US) in early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer, focusing on its ability to predict nodal metastasis and long-term recurrence. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with T1–T2 clinically node-negative breast cancer who underwent preoperative axillary US and surgery between January and December 2009. Based on US findings, patients were classified as US-positive (presence of suspicious nodes, such as cortical thickening or absent fatty hilum) or US-negative.Clinicopathological features and recurrence outcomes were analyzed using the χ2 test, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results: Among 878 women (mean age, 49 ± 9 years), 234 were US-positive and 644 were US-negative; 283 patients were pathologic node-positive (pN ≥ 1) and 595 were node-negative (pN0). Preoperative axillary US demonstrated a sensitivity of 42.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.8–48.2); specificity, 80.8% (95% CI, 77.5–83.8); positive predictive value, 51.3% (95% CI, 44.9–57.6); and negative predictive value, 74.7% (95% CI, 71.2–77.9). The US-positive group had a higher rate of axillary lymph node dissection (62.8% vs. 32.8%), greater mean number of metastatic nodes (2.6 vs. 0.5), and higher proportion of macrometastasis (94.2% vs. 71.8%) compared with the US-negative group (all p < 0.001). The 10-year recurrencefree survival was lowest in the pN-positive/US-positive group (90.3%; 95% CI, 82.7–94.7), intermediate in the pN-positive/US-negative group (92.4%; 95% CI, 86.7–95.7), and highest in the pN-negative group (97.4%; 95% CI, 95.4–98.5) (log-rank p < 0.001). Conclusion Preoperative axillary US might help assess lymph node metastasis in clinically node-negative patients. Moreover, US positivity was associated with an increased risk of long-term recurrence.

People with obesity maintain low levels of inflammation; therefore, their exposure to foreign antigens can trigger an excessive immune response. In people with obesity or allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), symptoms are exacerbated by a reduction in the number of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and IL-10/TGF-β–modified macrophages (M2 macrophages) at the inflammatory site. Benefits of intermittent fasting (IF) have been demonstrated for many diseases; however, the immune responses regulated by macrophages and CD4+ T cells in obese ACD animal models are poorly understood. Therefore, we investigated whether IF suppresses inflammatory responses and upregulates the generation of Tregs and M2 macrophages in experimental ACD animal models of obese mice. The IF regimen relieved various ACD symptoms in inflamed and adipose tissues. We showed that the IF regimen upregulates Treg generation in a TGF-β-dependent manner and induces CD4+ T cell hypo-responsiveness. IF-M2 macrophages, which strongly express TGF-β and inhibit CD4+ T cell proliferation, directly regulated Treg differentiation from CD4+ T cells. These results indicate that the IF regimen enhances the TGF-β-producing ability of M2 macrophages and that the development of Tregs keeps mice healthy against ACD exacerbated by obesity. Therefore, the IF regimen may ameliorate inflammatory immune disorders caused by obesity.

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.