Background: The exposome encompasses all factors people encounter through life, with the skin constantly exposed. While particulate matter (PM) and sleep deprivation are known to contribute to barrier dysfunction, their combined effects remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the independent and combined effects of PM exposure and short-term sleep deprivation on skin barrier function. Methods: Forty healthy Korean women (aged 24–58 years) were enrolled in this study. Forearms were divided into 4 sites: control, PM exposure, sleep deprivation, and PM plus sleep deprivation. Parameters such as trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), hydration, elasticity, roughness, and redness were measured at baseline and post-exposure. RNA sequencing and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction were conducted on tape-stripped skin samples. Results: PM exposure significantly increased TEWL (+25.59%, p<0.01), roughness (+21.9%, p<0.01), and redness (+13.7%, p<0.0001) while reducing elasticity (−3.98%, p<0.01). Sleep deprivation modestly reduced elasticity (−1.39%, p<0.05) without affecting other parameters.Combined PM and sleep deprivation did not further exacerbate barrier dysfunction compared to PM alone. RNA sequencing revealed reduced FLG and LORICRIN expression and upregulated endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress markers (HSP90B1, CANX) in both PM and sleep deprivation conditions. Conclusion PM exposure impaired skin barrier function, while short-term sleep deprivation alone did not significantly affect the barrier, either independently or in combination with PM.However, it was observed that the sleep deprivation-only, while not directly causing barrier damage, induced changes in ER stress-related gene expression in tape-stripped skin samples, like the PM exposure-only. This suggests that such signaling pathways could potentially exacerbate skin barrier deterioration.

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: Diffuse sclerosing variant papillary thyroid carcinoma (DSV-PTC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of PTC.Preoperative diagnosis is challenging owing to the overlapping of imaging characteristics with those of other thyroid conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of preoperative ultrasound (US) in predicting DSV-PTC and to identify significant diagnostic factors. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 34 patients who were preoperatively suspected of having DSV-PTC based on US findings and later underwent thyroidectomy. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the final histopathological diagnosis: DSV-PTC and non-DSV-PTC. Demographic, radiological, and pathological characteristics were also compared. Results: Only 32.4% of patients initially suspected of having DSV-PTC were confirmed postoperatively. Among the US features, the Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (K-TIRADS) score 5 was significantly associated with DSV-PTC (P = 0.038), whereas other radiological factors, including echogenicity and microcalcifications, were not. The histopathological features, such as tumor size, BRAF and TERT mutations, vascular invasion, and lymph node metastasis, showed no significant differences between the groups. Conclusion Preoperative US has limited accuracy (32.4%) in diagnosing DSV-PTC. Because of the aggressive treatment recommendations based on preoperative suspicion, clinicians should carefully consider the limitations of imaging. Further studies incorporating fine-needle aspiration or core needle biopsy are required to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Purpose: Laparoscopic appendectomy, a routine surgical procedure for acute appendicitis, is commonly performed in general hospitals. However, postoperative outcomes based on surgical subspecialty have not been well established. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy across different surgical subspecialties using risk-adjusted cumulative summation (RA-CUSUM) analysis. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 631 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy between July 2020 and December 2022. Surgeons were categorized into gastrointestinal (GI) or non-GI groups and senior or young groups. Surgical failure was defined as operation time exceeding the mean plus 2 standard deviations, presence of postoperative complications, or readmission within 30 days after surgery. RA-CUSUM analysis was employed to evaluate surgical failure within each group. Results: The GI group performed more partial cecectomies (P = 0.017) and had longer operation times (P = 0.019) than the non-GI group. The senior group exhibited shorter operation time (P < 0.001), reduced length of stay (P = 0.011), and a higher complication rate (P < 0.001) than the young group. RA-CUSUM analysis indicated a decrease in surgical failure as accumulation progressed in both senior and young groups, as well as in the GI and non-GI groups. Conclusion Outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy varied by subspecialty and length of experience. However, each surgeon showed trends of decreasing surgical failure over time. These results suggest that the surgeon’s subspecialty minimally affects the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy, reflecting its fundamental nature within general surgery.

In the rapidly evolving healthcare environment, radiologists strive to establish their rightful place.Thus, there is a need for enhanced outpatient and clinical education within the Department of Radiology and exploration of its methodologies. Accordingly, the Korean Society of Radiology established a task force to investigate the clinical and outpatient practice status of radiologists overseas, current state of related education, involvement of other specialties in radiologic practices and education in Korea, and clinical and outpatient practice status among Korean radiologists. Furthermore, a survey on clinical competency enhancement was conducted among the members of the Korean Society of Radiology. These findings suggest the need for visibility and clinical competency enhancement in radiologists and methodologies for strengthening clinical competencies.