Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic and relapsing gastrointestinal disorder characterized by the reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus, leading to troublesome symptoms and/or complications. Since the publication of the 2020 Seoul Consensus on GERD, significant new evidence has emerged, particularly regarding acid-suppressive therapies and diagnostic approaches. This 2025 focused update aims to refine GERD management strategies by incorporating the latest evidence on acid suppressive therapies and regional considerations in Asian populations. This study builds on the 2020 Seoul Consensus by integrating systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and expert consensuses to offer updated recommendations for the definition and medical treatment of GERD. These guidelines incorporate recent advances in acid-suppressive therapies, particularly potassium-competitive acid blockers, and adopt updated diagnostic frameworks in accordance with the Lyon Consensus 2.0. Key clinical questions were identified and structured using the following format: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome. The resulting recommendations address the initial treatment, long-term maintenance strategies, and role of personalized therapy based on disease severity, such as the grade of reflux esophagitis. Six key statements are presented: updated definition and classification of GERD (Statement 1); initial and long-term treatment strategies tailored to GERD phenotypes, such as non-erosive reflux disease, mild erosive esophagitis, and severe erosive esophagitis (Statements 2-5); and dose optimization strategies for long-term safety (Statement 6). These guidelines aim to support gastroenterologists and general healthcare providers in making individualized evidence-based decisions for GERD management.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Background: There are limited long-term clinical outcome data comparing first-generation (1G) versus second-generation (2G) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD). We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of 1G- and 2G-DES in SVD patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over 10 years of clinical follow-up. Methods: A total of 2,312 consecutive patients with SVD who underwent PCI with 1G-DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 811) or 2G-DES (zotarolimus [Endeavor, Endeavor Resolute]- or everolimus-eluting stents [Promus Element, Xience], n = 1,082) were enrolled.After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups (538 pairs) were generated. Study endpoints included individual and composite clinical outcomes through 10 years. Results: During the 10-year follow-up, the 2G-DES group had lower incidences of myocardial infarction (MI; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.92; P = 0.028) and target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P = 0.021) than the 1G-DES group. Rates of total death, cardiac death, non-target vessel revascularization, stroke, major adverse cardiac events, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups. Conclusions In our single-center, all-comer registry, 2G-DES were associated with lower incidence rates of MI and TLR compared to 1G-DES in SVD patients over 10 years of followup, indicating a safer and more durable effect than 1G-DES.

Background/Aims: Although the association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the risk of gastric cancer has been postulated in casecontrol and cohort studies, it remains still controversial. We aim to evaluate association of PPI use with gastric cancer in regions with high prevalence of gastric cancer, particularly in patients who underwent eradication of Helicobacter pylori, by systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Comprehensive literature search through the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database was performed in October 2023. We used random effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between PPI use and gastric cancer.The Cochran Q-statistic and the I² test were employed for evaluating potential heterogeneity between studies. Results: Two case-control and 6 cohort studies were identified. PPI use was significantly associated with the development of gastric cancer (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.35-3.01). In subgroup analysis carried out according to the study design, sample size, and adjustment of confounding factors (age, sex, and H. pylori), such association was significant. A meta-analysis of 4 studies performed in patients with H. pylori eradication history showed that the use of PPIs was significantly associated with an elevated incidence of gastric cancer (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.48-2.97). Conclusions Long-term use of PPIs is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer in Asian regions with high prevalence of gastric cancer, particularly in subjects who have eradication history of H. pylori. Optimization of long-term PPI use seems to be necessary in regions where gastric cancer is prevalent.

Background/Aims: Post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome (PI-IBS) is characterized by chronic gastrointestinal symptoms that arise following an episode of infectious enteritis. The incidence rates vary, ranging from 5% to 32% and the risk factors are not well known. We aim to investigate the incidence and risk factors of PI-IBS in enteritis patients admitted to university hospitals in Korea. Methods: This multi-center prospective study was conducted in patients hospitalized for infectious enteritis. Each patient underwent 1 outpatient visit and 3 telephone surveys during the first year after discharge to determine if PI-IBS occurred within the follow-up period. Results: In the 3-month survey, 7 out of 354 patients (2%) were diagnosed with PI-IBS, and after 1 year, only 1 patient met the criteria for IBS.No statistically significant difference was found between the PI-IBS group and the non-PI-IBS group in terms of age, sex, underlying diseases, medication history, gastrointestinal symptoms, enteritis location, causative strain, hospitalization and treatment periods, and laboratory findings. Female sex (P = 0.003), enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) infection (P = 0.044), and a longer total treatment period (P = 0.018) were independent risk factors for diarrhea lasting ≥ 3 months after enteritis. Conclusions The incidence of PI-IBS in Korea was relatively low, and most cases improved over time. No risk factors associated with the development of PI-IBS were found. However, persistent diarrhea after enteritis was associated with female sex, EPEC infection, and severe or long-lasting enteritis. IBS symptoms may persist after severe enteritis but usually improve with time.

Background/Aims: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has become the standard for initial evaluation in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions. Although optimal visualization of the mucosa is important, patients experience difficulty in consuming a large volume of bowel preparation agents. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (AA) and 2-L PEG with AA. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study, patients who received SBCE were randomly assigned to consume 1-L PEG with AA or 2-L PEG with AA for small bowel preparation. The primary outcome was adequate small bowel visibility quality (SBVQ). The secondary outcomes included diagnostic yield, cecal complete rate, and adverse events. Results: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this study, 70 patients per group. In the per-protocol analysis, there were no significant differences in the adequate SBVQ rate (94.0% vs 94.3%; risk difference, –0.3; 95% confidence interval, –8.1 to 7.6; p=1.000), diagnostic yield rate (49.3% vs 48.6%, p=0.936), or cecal complete rate (88.1% vs 92.9%, p=0.338) between the 1-L PEG with AA group and 2-L PEG with AA group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.9% vs 11.9%, p=0.871). Conclusions One liter-PEG with AA is not inferior to 2-L PEG with AA in terms of adequate SBVQ for SBCE. One liter-PEG with AA can be recommended as the standard method for bowel cleansing for SBCE.

Background/Aims: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has become the standard for initial evaluation in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions. Although optimal visualization of the mucosa is important, patients experience difficulty in consuming a large volume of bowel preparation agents. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (AA) and 2-L PEG with AA. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study, patients who received SBCE were randomly assigned to consume 1-L PEG with AA or 2-L PEG with AA for small bowel preparation. The primary outcome was adequate small bowel visibility quality (SBVQ). The secondary outcomes included diagnostic yield, cecal complete rate, and adverse events. Results: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this study, 70 patients per group. In the per-protocol analysis, there were no significant differences in the adequate SBVQ rate (94.0% vs 94.3%; risk difference, –0.3; 95% confidence interval, –8.1 to 7.6; p=1.000), diagnostic yield rate (49.3% vs 48.6%, p=0.936), or cecal complete rate (88.1% vs 92.9%, p=0.338) between the 1-L PEG with AA group and 2-L PEG with AA group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.9% vs 11.9%, p=0.871). Conclusions One liter-PEG with AA is not inferior to 2-L PEG with AA in terms of adequate SBVQ for SBCE. One liter-PEG with AA can be recommended as the standard method for bowel cleansing for SBCE.

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.

Background/Aims: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has become the standard for initial evaluation in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions. Although optimal visualization of the mucosa is important, patients experience difficulty in consuming a large volume of bowel preparation agents. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (AA) and 2-L PEG with AA. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study, patients who received SBCE were randomly assigned to consume 1-L PEG with AA or 2-L PEG with AA for small bowel preparation. The primary outcome was adequate small bowel visibility quality (SBVQ). The secondary outcomes included diagnostic yield, cecal complete rate, and adverse events. Results: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this study, 70 patients per group. In the per-protocol analysis, there were no significant differences in the adequate SBVQ rate (94.0% vs 94.3%; risk difference, –0.3; 95% confidence interval, –8.1 to 7.6; p=1.000), diagnostic yield rate (49.3% vs 48.6%, p=0.936), or cecal complete rate (88.1% vs 92.9%, p=0.338) between the 1-L PEG with AA group and 2-L PEG with AA group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.9% vs 11.9%, p=0.871). Conclusions One liter-PEG with AA is not inferior to 2-L PEG with AA in terms of adequate SBVQ for SBCE. One liter-PEG with AA can be recommended as the standard method for bowel cleansing for SBCE.