1.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
2.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
4.Differentiation between Hypovolemic Shock and Septic Shock in Patients with Unstable Vital Signs after Cesarean Section: A Case Report
Jae Young JI ; Da Hyung KIM ; Yong Han SEO ; Ho Soon JUNG ; Hea Rim CHUN ; Hyung Youn GONG ; Jin Soo PARK ; Ye Eun SHIN
Soonchunhyang Medical Science 2024;30(2):56-59
Hypovolemic shock and septic shock present similar symptoms, such as increased heart rate and decreased blood pressure. However, the two conditions have different causes, mechanisms, and treatment approaches. Early differentiation between the two conditions can have a positive impact on patient prognosis. In this case, the patient underwent a right ovarian cystectomy due to a teratoma torsion during a previous pregnancy, followed by treatment for a postoperative infection. While recovering, the patient underwent an emergency cesarean section due to sudden severe abdominal pain. After the surgery, unstable vital signs were suggestive of hypovolemia due to massive bleeding from the cesarean section. Therefore, fluid infusion and blood transfusion were initiated. The vital signs did not improve. So, the patient was reassessed. Body temperature and the previously elevated C-reactive protein levels were remeasured. The results of the reassessment indicated a septic condition due to previous infection. The patient was prescribed additional vasopressors and antibiotics for the following week. Subsequently, the patient’s vital signs stabilized, and the treatment was discontinued.
5.Differentiation between Hypovolemic Shock and Septic Shock in Patients with Unstable Vital Signs after Cesarean Section: A Case Report
Jae Young JI ; Da Hyung KIM ; Yong Han SEO ; Ho Soon JUNG ; Hea Rim CHUN ; Hyung Youn GONG ; Jin Soo PARK ; Ye Eun SHIN
Soonchunhyang Medical Science 2024;30(2):56-59
Hypovolemic shock and septic shock present similar symptoms, such as increased heart rate and decreased blood pressure. However, the two conditions have different causes, mechanisms, and treatment approaches. Early differentiation between the two conditions can have a positive impact on patient prognosis. In this case, the patient underwent a right ovarian cystectomy due to a teratoma torsion during a previous pregnancy, followed by treatment for a postoperative infection. While recovering, the patient underwent an emergency cesarean section due to sudden severe abdominal pain. After the surgery, unstable vital signs were suggestive of hypovolemia due to massive bleeding from the cesarean section. Therefore, fluid infusion and blood transfusion were initiated. The vital signs did not improve. So, the patient was reassessed. Body temperature and the previously elevated C-reactive protein levels were remeasured. The results of the reassessment indicated a septic condition due to previous infection. The patient was prescribed additional vasopressors and antibiotics for the following week. Subsequently, the patient’s vital signs stabilized, and the treatment was discontinued.
6.Differentiation between Hypovolemic Shock and Septic Shock in Patients with Unstable Vital Signs after Cesarean Section: A Case Report
Jae Young JI ; Da Hyung KIM ; Yong Han SEO ; Ho Soon JUNG ; Hea Rim CHUN ; Hyung Youn GONG ; Jin Soo PARK ; Ye Eun SHIN
Soonchunhyang Medical Science 2024;30(2):56-59
Hypovolemic shock and septic shock present similar symptoms, such as increased heart rate and decreased blood pressure. However, the two conditions have different causes, mechanisms, and treatment approaches. Early differentiation between the two conditions can have a positive impact on patient prognosis. In this case, the patient underwent a right ovarian cystectomy due to a teratoma torsion during a previous pregnancy, followed by treatment for a postoperative infection. While recovering, the patient underwent an emergency cesarean section due to sudden severe abdominal pain. After the surgery, unstable vital signs were suggestive of hypovolemia due to massive bleeding from the cesarean section. Therefore, fluid infusion and blood transfusion were initiated. The vital signs did not improve. So, the patient was reassessed. Body temperature and the previously elevated C-reactive protein levels were remeasured. The results of the reassessment indicated a septic condition due to previous infection. The patient was prescribed additional vasopressors and antibiotics for the following week. Subsequently, the patient’s vital signs stabilized, and the treatment was discontinued.
7.Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment
Hyo Seon RYU ; Hyun Jung KIM ; Woong Bae JI ; Byung Chang KIM ; Ji Hun KIM ; Sung Kyung MOON ; Sung Il KANG ; Han Deok KWAK ; Eun Sun KIM ; Chang Hyun KIM ; Tae Hyung KIM ; Gyoung Tae NOH ; Byung-Soo PARK ; Hyeung-Min PARK ; Jeong Mo BAE ; Jung Hoon BAE ; Ni Eun SEO ; Chang Hoon SONG ; Mi Sun AHN ; Jae Seon EO ; Young Chul YOON ; Joon-Kee YOON ; Kyung Ha LEE ; Kyung Hee LEE ; Kil-Yong LEE ; Myung Su LEE ; Sung Hak LEE ; Jong Min LEE ; Ji Eun LEE ; Han Hee LEE ; Myong Hoon IHN ; Je-Ho JANG ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Kum Ju CHAE ; Jin-Ho CHOI ; Dae Hee PYO ; Gi Won HA ; Kyung Su HAN ; Young Ki HONG ; Chang Won HONG ; Jung-Myun KWAK ;
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(2):89-113
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.
8.Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers
Hyung Sun KIM ; Mee Joo KANG ; Jingu KANG ; Kyubo KIM ; Bohyun KIM ; Seong-Hun KIM ; Soo Jin KIM ; Yong-Il KIM ; Joo Young KIM ; Jin Sil KIM ; Haeryoung KIM ; Hyo Jung KIM ; Ji Hae NAHM ; Won Suk PARK ; Eunkyu PARK ; Joo Kyung PARK ; Jin Myung PARK ; Byeong Jun SONG ; Yong Chan SHIN ; Keun Soo AHN ; Sang Myung WOO ; Jeong Il YU ; Changhoon YOO ; Kyoungbun LEE ; Dong Ho LEE ; Myung Ah LEE ; Seung Eun LEE ; Ik Jae LEE ; Huisong LEE ; Jung Ho IM ; Kee-Taek JANG ; Hye Young JANG ; Sun-Young JUN ; Hong Jae CHON ; Min Kyu JUNG ; Yong Eun CHUNG ; Jae Uk CHONG ; Eunae CHO ; Eui Kyu CHIE ; Sae Byeol CHOI ; Seo-Yeon CHOI ; Seong Ji CHOI ; Joon Young CHOI ; Hye-Jeong CHOI ; Seung-Mo HONG ; Ji Hyung HONG ; Tae Ho HONG ; Shin Hye HWANG ; In Gyu HWANG ; Joon Seong PARK
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(2):161-202
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.
9.Prevalence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unclassified, as Estimated Using the Revised Porto Criteria, among Korean Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Sung Hee LEE ; Minsoo SHIN ; Seo Hee KIM ; Seong Pyo KIM ; Hyung-Jin YOON ; Yangsoon PARK ; Jaemoon KOH ; Seak Hee OH ; Jae Sung KO ; Jin Soo MOON ; Kyung Mo KIM
Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition 2024;27(4):206-214
Purpose:
Few studies have reported the prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease unclassified (IBDU) among Korean pediatric IBD (PIBD) population. To address this gap, we used two tertiary centers and nationwide population-based healthcare administrative data to estimate the prevalence of Korean pediatric IBDU at the time of diagnosis.
Methods:
We identified 136 patients aged 2–17 years with newly diagnosed IBD (94 Crohn’s disease [CD] and 42 ulcerative colitis [UC]) from two tertiary centers in Korea between 2005 and 2017. We reclassified these 136 patients using the revised Porto criteria. To estimate the population-based prevalence, we analyzed Korean administrative healthcare data between 2005 and 2016, which revealed 3,650 IBD patients, including 2,538 CD and 1,112 UC. By extrapolating the reclassified results to a population-based dataset, we estimated the prevalence of PIBD subtypes.
Results:
Among the 94 CD, the original diagnosis remained unchanged in 93 (98.9%), while the diagnosis of one (1.1%) patient was changed to IBDU. Among the 42 UC, the original diagnosis remained unchanged in 13 (31.0%), while the diagnoses in 11 (26.2%), 17 (40.5%), and one (2.4%) patient changed to atypical UC, IBDU, and CD, respectively. The estimated prevalences of CD, UC, atypical UC, and IBDU in the Korean population were 69.5%, 9.4%, 8.0%, and 13.1%, respectively.
Conclusion
This study is the first in Korea to estimate the prevalence of pediatric IBDU.This prevalence (13.1%) aligns with findings from Western studies. Large-scale prospective multicenter studies on PIBDU are required to examine the clinical features and outcomes of this condition.
10.Decision Making Delay in Methamphetamine Use Disorder Individuals:Delayed Shift From Ambiguity to Risk
Hyung Do KIM ; Yang-Tae KIM ; Sang Soo SEO
Journal of the Korean Society of Biological Therapies in Psychiatry 2024;30(3):76-85
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to investigate how impaired decision-making, hypersensitivity to reward, and executive dysfunction in individuals with methamphetamine use disorder affect their ability to make decisions under uncertain conditions.
Methods:
We conducted a study with 33 patients diagnosed with methamphetamine use disorder and 33 healthy individuals. Three tasks were administered: the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), Game of Dice Task (GDT), and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). We then analyzed the participants’ performance on these tasks and calculated the correlations between them.
Results:
Patients with methamphetamine use disorder performed poorly on all three tasks compared to the healthy individuals. Furthermore, the correlations between performances on the GDT and the later trials of the IGT were delayed in the methamphetamine use disorder group compared to the healthy group. A strong correlations were also observed between performances on the earlier trials of the IGT and the WCST in the patient group.
Conclusions
These findings suggest that executive dysfunction in individuals with methamphetamine use disorder impairs their ability to accurately estimate the probabilities of different choices. Consequently, this impairment leads to a delayed transition from uncertain to risky decisions in the IGT. The study sheds light on the neuropsychological factors that contribute to impaired decision-making under uncertainty in individuals with methamphetamine use disorder.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail