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: This study aimed to report the results of Korean Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (KARMS) for uncomplicated cystitis (UC) in 2023. Materials and Methods: KARMS was established for the surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in urinary tract infections with the cooperation of Korean nationwide medical centers. Data from patients with UC have been collected in the web-based KARMS database. Demographic data, uropathogen distribution, and antimicrobial susceptibility of representative pathogens were analyzed. Results: A total of 885 patients’ data were collected in KARMS database. The mean patient age was 56.39±18.26 years. The number of postmenopausal and recurrent cystitis were 530 (61.1%) and 102 (11.5%), respectively. Escherichia coli was the most frequently identified uropathogen (654/871, 75.1%). Regarding antimicrobial susceptibility, 94.9% were susceptible to fosfomycin, 90.5% to nitrofurantoin, 58.4% to ciprofloxacin, 83.6% to cefotaxime, and 100.0% to ertapenem. ESBL positivity was 13.7% (96/702), and significantly higher in tertiary hospital (23.1%, p<0.001), postmenopausal (15.9%, p=0.044), and recurrent cystitis (24.7%, p=0.001).Fluoroquinolone resistance was significantly higher in tertiary hospital (47.4%, p=0.001), postmenopausal (44.9%, p<0.001), and recurrent cystitis (59.8%, p<0.001). In addition, postmenopausal (odds ratio [OR] 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38–2.77, p<0.001) and recurrent cystitis (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.44–3.92, p=0.001) were associated with increased fluoroquinolone resistance. Conclusions These data provide information on the distribution of uropathogen and the status of antimicrobial resistance in UC of South Korea. In addition, KARMS will be a useful reference in the future through the continuous surveillance system construction over the years.

Vancomycin variable Enterococcus (VVE) bacteria are phenotypically susceptible to vancomycin, but they harbor the vanA gene. We aimed to ascertain the prevalence of VVE among clinically isolated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) isolates, as well as elucidate the molecular characteristics of the vanA gene cluster within these isolates. Notably, we investigated the prevalence and structure of the vanA gene cluster of VVE. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we collected consecutive, non-duplicated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) samples. Real-time PCR was performed to detect the presence of vanA, vanB, and vanC. Overlapping PCR with sequencing and whole -genome sequencing were performed for structural analysis. Sequence types (STs) were determined by multilocus sequence typing. Exposure testing was performed to assess the ability of the isolates to acquire vancomycin resistance. Among 282 VSE isolates tested, 20 isolates (7.1%) were VVE. Among them, 17 isolates had partial deletions in the IS1216 or IS1542 sequences in vanS (N = 10), vanR (N = 5), or vanH (N = 2). All VVE isolates belonged to the CC17 complex and comprised five STs, namely ST17 (40.0%), ST1421 (25.0%), ST80 (25.0%), ST787 (5.0%), and ST981 (5.0%). Most isolates were related to three hospital-associated clones (ST17, ST1421, and ST80). After vancomycin exposure, 18 of the 20 VVEs acquired vancomycin resistance. Considering the high reversion rate, detecting VVE by screening VSE for vanA is critical for appropriate treatment and infection control.

Vancomycin variable Enterococcus (VVE) bacteria are phenotypically susceptible to vancomycin, but they harbor the vanA gene. We aimed to ascertain the prevalence of VVE among clinically isolated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) isolates, as well as elucidate the molecular characteristics of the vanA gene cluster within these isolates. Notably, we investigated the prevalence and structure of the vanA gene cluster of VVE. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we collected consecutive, non-duplicated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) samples. Real-time PCR was performed to detect the presence of vanA, vanB, and vanC. Overlapping PCR with sequencing and whole -genome sequencing were performed for structural analysis. Sequence types (STs) were determined by multilocus sequence typing. Exposure testing was performed to assess the ability of the isolates to acquire vancomycin resistance. Among 282 VSE isolates tested, 20 isolates (7.1%) were VVE. Among them, 17 isolates had partial deletions in the IS1216 or IS1542 sequences in vanS (N = 10), vanR (N = 5), or vanH (N = 2). All VVE isolates belonged to the CC17 complex and comprised five STs, namely ST17 (40.0%), ST1421 (25.0%), ST80 (25.0%), ST787 (5.0%), and ST981 (5.0%). Most isolates were related to three hospital-associated clones (ST17, ST1421, and ST80). After vancomycin exposure, 18 of the 20 VVEs acquired vancomycin resistance. Considering the high reversion rate, detecting VVE by screening VSE for vanA is critical for appropriate treatment and infection control.

Vancomycin variable Enterococcus (VVE) bacteria are phenotypically susceptible to vancomycin, but they harbor the vanA gene. We aimed to ascertain the prevalence of VVE among clinically isolated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) isolates, as well as elucidate the molecular characteristics of the vanA gene cluster within these isolates. Notably, we investigated the prevalence and structure of the vanA gene cluster of VVE. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we collected consecutive, non-duplicated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) samples. Real-time PCR was performed to detect the presence of vanA, vanB, and vanC. Overlapping PCR with sequencing and whole -genome sequencing were performed for structural analysis. Sequence types (STs) were determined by multilocus sequence typing. Exposure testing was performed to assess the ability of the isolates to acquire vancomycin resistance. Among 282 VSE isolates tested, 20 isolates (7.1%) were VVE. Among them, 17 isolates had partial deletions in the IS1216 or IS1542 sequences in vanS (N = 10), vanR (N = 5), or vanH (N = 2). All VVE isolates belonged to the CC17 complex and comprised five STs, namely ST17 (40.0%), ST1421 (25.0%), ST80 (25.0%), ST787 (5.0%), and ST981 (5.0%). Most isolates were related to three hospital-associated clones (ST17, ST1421, and ST80). After vancomycin exposure, 18 of the 20 VVEs acquired vancomycin resistance. Considering the high reversion rate, detecting VVE by screening VSE for vanA is critical for appropriate treatment and infection control.

Vancomycin variable Enterococcus (VVE) bacteria are phenotypically susceptible to vancomycin, but they harbor the vanA gene. We aimed to ascertain the prevalence of VVE among clinically isolated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) isolates, as well as elucidate the molecular characteristics of the vanA gene cluster within these isolates. Notably, we investigated the prevalence and structure of the vanA gene cluster of VVE. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we collected consecutive, non-duplicated vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (VSE) samples. Real-time PCR was performed to detect the presence of vanA, vanB, and vanC. Overlapping PCR with sequencing and whole -genome sequencing were performed for structural analysis. Sequence types (STs) were determined by multilocus sequence typing. Exposure testing was performed to assess the ability of the isolates to acquire vancomycin resistance. Among 282 VSE isolates tested, 20 isolates (7.1%) were VVE. Among them, 17 isolates had partial deletions in the IS1216 or IS1542 sequences in vanS (N = 10), vanR (N = 5), or vanH (N = 2). All VVE isolates belonged to the CC17 complex and comprised five STs, namely ST17 (40.0%), ST1421 (25.0%), ST80 (25.0%), ST787 (5.0%), and ST981 (5.0%). Most isolates were related to three hospital-associated clones (ST17, ST1421, and ST80). After vancomycin exposure, 18 of the 20 VVEs acquired vancomycin resistance. Considering the high reversion rate, detecting VVE by screening VSE for vanA is critical for appropriate treatment and infection control.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of Catalpa bignonioides fruit extract on the promotion of muscle growth and muscular capacity in vitro and in vivo. Methods: Cell viability was measured using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol- 2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. Cell proliferation was assessed using a 5-bromo-2’-deoxyuridine (BrdU) assay kit. Western blot analysis was performed to determine the protein expressions of related factors. The effects of Catalpa bignonioides extract were investigated in mice using the treadmill exhaustion test and whole-limb grip strength assay. Chemical composition analysis was performed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Results: Catalpa bignonioides extract increased the proliferation of C2C12 mouse myoblasts by activating the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. It also induced metabolic changes, increasing the number of mitochondria and glucose metabolism by phosphorylating adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase. In an in vivo study, the extract-treated mice showed improved motor abilities, such as muscular endurance and grip strength. Additionally, HPLC analysis showed that vanillic acid may be the main component of the Catalpa bignonioides extract that enhanced muscle strength. Conclusions: Catalpa bignonioides improves exercise performance through regulation of growth and metabolism in skeletal muscles, suggesting its potential as an effective natural agent for improving muscular strength.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.