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.

OBJECTIVES: The escalating burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a critical public health issue worldwide. CVD, especially acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke, is the leading contributor to morbidity and mortality in Korea. We aimed to develop algorithms for identifying AMI and stroke events from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database and validate these algorithms through medical record review. METHODS: We first established a concept and definition of “hospitalization episode,” taking into account the unique features of health claims-based NHIS database. We then developed first and recurrent event identification algorithms, separately for AMI and stroke, to determine whether each hospitalization episode represents a true incident case of AMI or stroke. Finally, we assessed our algorithms’ accuracy by calculating their positive predictive values (PPVs) based on medical records of algorithm- identified events. RESULTS: We developed identification algorithms for both AMI and stroke. To validate them, we conducted retrospective review of medical records for 3,140 algorithm-identified events (1,399 AMI and 1,741 stroke events) across 24 hospitals throughout Korea. The overall PPVs for the first and recurrent AMI events were around 92% and 78%, respectively, while those for the first and recurrent stroke events were around 88% and 81%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS We successfully developed algorithms for identifying AMI and stroke events. The algorithms demonstrated high accuracy, with PPVs of approximately 90% for first events and 80% for recurrent events. These findings indicate that our algorithms hold promise as an instrumental tool for the consistent and reliable production of national CVD statistics in Korea.

Background and Objectives: Inherited arrhythmia (IA) is a more common cause of sudden cardiac death in Asian population, but little is known about the genetic background of Asian IA probands. We aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and analyze the genetic underpinnings of IA in a Korean cohort. Methods: This study was conducted in a multicenter cohort of the Korean IA Registry from 2014 to 2017. Genetic testing was performed using a next-generation sequencing panel including 174 causative genes of cardiovascular disease. Results: Among the 265 IA probands, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) and Brugada Syndrome (BrS) was the most prevalent diseases (96 and 95 cases respectively), followed by long QT syndrome (LQTS, n=54). Two-hundred-sixteen probands underwent genetic testing, and 69 probands (31.9%) were detected with genetic variant, with yield of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant as 6.4%. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in genotype positive probands (54.7±11.3 vs. 59.3±9.2%, p=0.005). IVF probands showed highest yield of positive genotype (54.0%), followed by LQTS (23.8%), and BrS (19.5%). Conclusions There were significant differences in clinical characteristics and genetic yields among BrS, LQTS, and IVF. Genetic testing did not provide better yield for BrS and LQTS. On the other hand, in IVF, genetic testing using multiple gene panel might enable the molecular diagnosis of concealed genotype, which may alter future clinical diagnosis and management strategies.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the added value of contrast leakage information from dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC MRI) is a better prognostic imaging biomarker than the cerebral blood volume (CBV) value in distinguishing true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients. Materials and Methods: Forty-nine glioblastoma patients who had undergone MRI after concurrent chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide were enrolled in this retrospective study. Twenty features were extracted from the normalized relative CBV (nCBV) and extraction fraction (EF) map of the contrast-enhancing region in each patient. After univariable analysis, we used multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis to identify significant predictors for differentiating between pseudoprogression and true progression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed to determine the best cutoff values for the nCBV and EF features. Finally, leave-one-out cross-validation was used to validate the best predictor in differentiating between true progression and pseudoprogression. Results: Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that MGMT (O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase) and EF max were independent differentiating variables (P = 0.004 and P = 0.02, respectively). ROC analysis yielded the best cutoff value of 95.75 for the EF max value for differentiating the two groups (sensitivity, 61%; specificity, 84.6%; AUC, 0.681 ± 0.08; 95% CI, 0.524-0.837; P = 0.03). In the leave-one-out cross-validation of the EF max value, the cross-validated values for predicting true progression and pseudoprogression accuracies were 69.4% and 71.4%,respectively. Conclusion We demonstrated that contrast leakage information parameter from DSC MRI showed significance in differentiating true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients.

Objective: To develop a radiomics risk score based on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI for prognosis prediction in patients with glioblastoma. Materials and Methods: One hundred and fifty patients (92 male [61.3%]; mean age ± standard deviation, 60.5 ± 13.5 years) with glioblastoma who underwent preoperative MRI were enrolled in the study. Six hundred and forty-two radiomic features were extracted from volume transfer constant (Ktrans), fractional volume of vascular plasma space (Vp), and fractional volume of extravascular extracellular space (Ve) maps of DCE MRI, wherein the regions of interest were based on both T1-weighted contrast-enhancing areas and non-enhancing T2 hyperintense areas. Using feature selection algorithms, salient radiomic features were selected from the 642 features. Next, a radiomics risk score was developed using a weighted combination of the selected features in the discovery set (n = 105); the risk score was validated in the validation set (n = 45) by investigating the difference in prognosis between the “radiomics risk score” groups. Finally, multivariable Cox regression analysis for progression-free survival was performed using the radiomics risk score and clinical variables as covariates. Results: 16 radiomic features obtained from non-enhancing T2 hyperintense areas were selected among the 642 features identified. The radiomics risk score was used to stratify high- and low-risk groups in both the discovery and validation sets (both p < 0.001 by the log-rank test). The radiomics risk score and presence of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation showed independent associations with progression-free survival in opposite directions (hazard ratio, 3.56; p = 0.004 and hazard ratio, 0.34; p = 0.022, respectively). Conclusion We developed and validated the “radiomics risk score” from the features of DCE MRI based on non-enhancing T2 hyperintense areas for risk stratification of patients with glioblastoma. It was associated with progression-free survival independently of IDH mutation status.

Objective: To develop a radiomics risk score based on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI for prognosis prediction in patients with glioblastoma. Materials and Methods: One hundred and fifty patients (92 male [61.3%]; mean age ± standard deviation, 60.5 ± 13.5 years) with glioblastoma who underwent preoperative MRI were enrolled in the study. Six hundred and forty-two radiomic features were extracted from volume transfer constant (Ktrans), fractional volume of vascular plasma space (Vp), and fractional volume of extravascular extracellular space (Ve) maps of DCE MRI, wherein the regions of interest were based on both T1-weighted contrast-enhancing areas and non-enhancing T2 hyperintense areas. Using feature selection algorithms, salient radiomic features were selected from the 642 features. Next, a radiomics risk score was developed using a weighted combination of the selected features in the discovery set (n = 105); the risk score was validated in the validation set (n = 45) by investigating the difference in prognosis between the “radiomics risk score” groups. Finally, multivariable Cox regression analysis for progression-free survival was performed using the radiomics risk score and clinical variables as covariates. Results: 16 radiomic features obtained from non-enhancing T2 hyperintense areas were selected among the 642 features identified. The radiomics risk score was used to stratify high- and low-risk groups in both the discovery and validation sets (both p < 0.001 by the log-rank test). The radiomics risk score and presence of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation showed independent associations with progression-free survival in opposite directions (hazard ratio, 3.56; p = 0.004 and hazard ratio, 0.34; p = 0.022, respectively). Conclusion We developed and validated the “radiomics risk score” from the features of DCE MRI based on non-enhancing T2 hyperintense areas for risk stratification of patients with glioblastoma. It was associated with progression-free survival independently of IDH mutation status.

Treatment of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) usually involves managing the underlying cardiac conditions that cause the arrhythmia. However, managing the underlying disease is often challenging, and catheter ablation, or treatment targeting the VA itself might be required in a few patients. In this article, we explored evidence and recommendations regarding the treatment of VA in patients with structural heart disease focusing on the utilization of catheter ablation in these patients. The administration of optimal medical therapy, insertion of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, or resynchronization therapy improves survival in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. The role of catheter ablation in preventing sudden cardiac death remains uncertain in this population. In patients with coronary artery disease, reversing myocardial ischemia via revascularization is important in managing VA. Catheter ablation is recommended in patients with recurrent ventricular tachycardia in a setting of ischemic heart disease. In patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathies such as dilated cardiomyopathy or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, catheter ablation may be considered for those presenting with drug-refractory ventricular tachycardia.
Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Cardiomyopathies ; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated ; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic ; Catheter Ablation ; Catheters ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Death, Sudden, Cardiac ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; Heart Diseases ; Humans ; Myocardial Ischemia ; Tachycardia, Ventricular ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left

The recommendations outlined constitute the first clinical practice guidelines of the Korean Heart Rhythm Society regarding catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias (VA). This is a guideline PART 2, which includes VA in the structurally normal heart, inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes, VA related to congenital heart disease, as well as VA and sudden cardiac death observed in specific populations. In the structurally normal heart, treatment is guided by the occurrence of symptoms or the frequency of arrhythmias that cause ventricular dysfunction over time. Catheter ablation can be recommended in patients in whom anti-arrhythmic medications are ineffective. The sites of origin of arrhythmic activity are known to be the outflow tract, fascicles, papillary muscle, or the annulus. Specific cardiac channelopathies include congenital long QT and Brugada syndrome. This guideline discusses the diagnostic criteria, risk stratification, and treatment of these syndromes. We have included recommendations for adult congenital heart disease. Moreover, we have discussed the management of VA occurring in specific populations such as in patients with psychiatric and neurological disorders, pregnant patients, those with obstructive sleep apnea or drug-related pro-arrhythmias, athletes, and elderly patients.
Adult ; Aged ; Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Athletes ; Brugada Syndrome ; Catheter Ablation ; Catheters ; Channelopathies ; Death, Sudden, Cardiac ; Heart ; Heart Defects, Congenital ; Humans ; Nervous System Diseases ; Papillary Muscles ; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive ; Ventricular Dysfunction