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.

Objective: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a global issue that negatively impacts the clinical outcome. Through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic era, overcrowding of ED isolated territory (isolation bed) was aggravated. This study analyzed overcrowding indices of ED isolation beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. The study analyzed 34,925 patients who visited the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic from April 2021 to August 2022. Patients who were treated in isolation beds and regular beds were compared. Among the patients using isolation beds, patients who stayed longer than 720 minutes were also classified and analyzed. Results: During the analysis period, 4,479 and 34,943 patients were treated in the ED isolation bed and ED regular bed, respectively. The overcrowding indices (general ward admission rate, intensive care unit admission rate, ED-length of stay, transfer rate, mortality rate, prolonged ED stay patient ratio) of the isolation beds were significantly higher than those of the ED regular bed (P<0.05). The prolonged ED stay-patient ratio of isolation beds and regular beds was affected by the number of COVID-19 patients (regular bed, r=0.617 and P=0.01; isolation bed, r=0.525 and P=0.03). The average ED-length of stay of isolation beds was longer than that of the ED regular beds. One hundred and forty-five patients were classified as prolonged ED stay patients. Their time from the decision point to the discharge point comprised a higher rate with an average of 76.52%. Conclusion ED isolation beds are more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. A proper medical policy and arrangement management system that can flexibly deal with disaster emergencies are required

Purpose: We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of kidney dynamic computed tomography (KDCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for the assessment of small renal mass (SRM) (≤4 cm). Materials and Methods: Seventy-six patients with SRM (mean age, 58.4±13.1 years) who underwent renal biopsy (n=11) or nephrectomy (partial or radical) (n=65) were enrolled. All patients underwent KDCT, MRI, and CEUS before renal biopsy or nephrectomy. Results: The mean maximal tumor size was 21.0±9.8 mm. The mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score was 7.0±1.7. Fifty-six patients had renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (clear cell, 42; papillary, 7; chromophobe, 5; succinate dehydrogenase deficient, 1; unspecified RCC, 1). Twenty patients had a benign tumor (angiomyolipoma, 11; oncocytoma, 3; others, 6). Clinicopathologic variables were comparable in RCC and benign groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of KDCT were 89.3%, 10.0%, 73.5%, and 25.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MRI were 89.3%, 10.0%, 73.5%, and 25.0%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEUS were 85.7%, 50.0%, 82.8%, and 55.6%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of KDCT, MRI, and CEUS were 68.4%, 68.4%, and 76.3%, respectively. In a subgroup analysis based on clinical tumor size of 10 mm and 20 mm, CEUS also showed the highest diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions CEUS had the highest specificity, PPV, and NPV and may help improve the assessment of SRM.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.