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.

Background: Primary cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders (pcCD30-LPDs) are a diseases with various clinical and prognostic characteristics. Objective: Increasing our knowledge of the clinical characteristics of pcCD30-LPDs and identifying potential prognostic variables in an Asian population. Methods: Clinicopathological features and survival data of pcCD30-LPD cases obtained from 22 hospitals in South Korea were examined. Results: A total of 413 cases of pcCD30-LPDs (lymphomatoid papulosis [LYP], n=237; primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma [C-ALCL], n=176) were included. Ninety percent of LYP patients and roughly 50% of C-ALCL patients presented with multiple skin lesions. Both LYP and C-ALCL affected the lower limbs most frequently. Multiplicity and advanced T stage of LYP lesions were associated with a chronic course longer than 6 months. Clinical morphology with patch lesions and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase were significantly associated with LPDs during follow-up in LYP patients. Extracutaneous involvement of C-ALCL occurred in 13.2% of patients. Lesions larger than 5 cm and increased serum lactate dehydrogenase were associated with a poor prognosis in C-ALCL. The survival of patients with C-ALCL was unaffected by the anatomical locations of skin lesions or other pathological factors. Conclusion The multiplicity or size of skin lesions was associated with a chronic course of LYP and survival among patients with C-ALCL.

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: This study aimed to assess the clinical outcome and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TR biopsy) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 556 patients who underwent HoLEP between 2014 and 2021. The patients were categorized into six groups: Group 1-A (n=45) underwent HoLEP within four months post TR biopsy. Group 1-B (n=94) underwent HoLEP more than four months post TR biopsy. Group 1-C (n=120) underwent HoLEP after a single TR biopsy. Group 1-D (n=19) underwent HoLEP after two or more TR biopsies. Group 1-total (n=139, group 1-A+group 1-B or group 1-C+group 1-D) underwent HoLEP post TR biopsy. Group 2 (control group, n=417) underwent HoLEP without prior TR biopsy. We examined perioperative parameters, safety, and functional outcomes. Results: The age, body mass index, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry, and comorbid diseases between group 1-total and group 2 were comparable. However, group 1-total exhibited significantly elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and larger prostate volumes (p<0.01). Perioperative factors like enucleation time, enucleation weight, and catheterization duration were notably higher in group 1-total (p<0.01). All groups showed significant improvements in IPSS, postvoid residual urine, and maximum flow rate during the 1-year postoperative period (p<0.05). The rates of postoperative complications were similar between group 1-total and group 2. Conclusions Enucleation time and catheterization duration were significantly longer in the TR biopsy group. However, postoperative complications were not significantly different between TR biopsy and non-TR biopsy groups.

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between urine cytology results after overnight continuous saline irrigation (OCSI) following transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) and bladder tumor recurrence in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients diagnosed with NMIBC between 2016 and 2020 after undergoing TURBT at our hospital. All patients received OCSI following TURBT and had urine cytology test at postoperative 1 day.Urine cytology was classified into three groups: Negative, low-grade urothelial neoplasm (LGUN)+atypical urothelial cells (AUC), and suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (SHGUC)+high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) in each group was compared using the Kaplan–Meier method. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate independent prognostic factors. Results: A total of 172 patients were included in this study. Based on urine cytology group (after OCSI), RFS did not reach the median value in the Negative group. In the LGUN+AUC group, the median RFS was 615.00 days. In the SHGUC+HGUC group, the median RFS was 377.00 days. In survival analysis, the Negative group had a longer RFS than the SHGUC+HGUC group (p=0.013).However, Cox regression analysis showed that SHGUC+HGUC was not an independent prognostic factor for recurrence. Conclusions Urine cytology results after OCSI following TURBT in NMIBC were associated with bladder tumor recurrence. Specifically, SHGUC or HGUC in urine cytology after OCSI showed earlier recurrence than negative cases. However, further research is needed to accurately determine whether it is an independent prognostic factor.

Background and Objectives: Accumulating evidence shows that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, whether SGLT2i, compared with other antidiabetic drugs, reduce the new development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. In this study, we compared SGLT2i with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in terms of reduction in the risk of AF in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods: We included 42,786 propensity score-matched pairs of SGLT2i and DPP-4i users without previous AF diagnosis using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database between May 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Results: During a median follow-up of 1.3 years, SGLT2i users had a lower incidence of AF than DPP-4i users (1.95 vs. 2.65 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.97; p=0.028]). In individuals without heart failure, SGLT2i users was associated with a decreased risk of AF incidence (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.94; p=0.019) compared to DPP-4i users. However, individuals with heart failure, SGLT2i users was not significantly associated with a change in risk (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.44–2.44; p=0.936). Conclusions In this nationwide cohort study of individuals with type 2 diabetes, treatment with SGLT2i was associated with a lower risk of AF compared with treatment with DPP-4i.