Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Background: Copy number variations (CNVs) play an important role in human genetic disorders. Detection of exon-level CNVs is crucial for accurate clinical diagnosis. The CytoScan XON Array, a high-resolution microarray, was recently developed to detect exonic CNVs of various genes. Methods: We evaluated the clinical performance of the CytoScan XON Array using 59 patient samples with previously identified CNVs, confirmed via methods including multiple ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), gene-dose PCR, and mRNA assay. Concordance between CytoScan XON and orthogonal methods was evaluated in target regions, and diagnostic utility was compared with that of genome sequencing (GS)-based CNV calling tools through analysis of false-positive CNVs in non-target genomic regions. Results: For target regions, the CytoScan XON Array achieved concordance rates of 89.8% and 92.5% at the exon and gene levels, respectively, for all CNV calls. Concordance was higher for multi-exon CNVs (100%) than that for single-exon CNVs (82.6%, P = 0.03). For non-target regions, false-positive CNV calls were reduced to fewer than 0.01 per gene per person through filtering strategies. The array exhibited false-positive detection rates within dosage-sensitive genes comparable with those of GS-based tools. Conclusions The CytoScan XON Array, a reliable tool for detecting exon-level CNVs in target regions, can serve as a complementary approach to GS-based CNV calling tools for genome-wide CNV screening with high resolution. However, its performance for single-exon CNVs requires further optimization. Cross-validation with GS-based CNV calling tools is recommended to improve diagnostic accuracy.

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: Processing methods for hematopoietic stem cells vary significantly across institutions, with no standardized guidelines currently in place. This lack of standardization presents challenges in ensuring consistent quality and out‑ comes of stem cell transplantation procedures. This study investigated current practices in peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) processing and storage among transplant centers in Korea to establish a foundation for the development of standardized guidelines. Methods: A comprehensive questionnaire was distributed to 46 hematopoietic stem cell transplantation centers in Korea, examining five key areas: PBSC collection procedures, use of cryopreservatives, cryopreservation protocols, quality control measures, and thawing protocols. Results: Analysis of the 29 responses revealed significant variations across different stages of PBSC handling. All centers used controlled-rate freezers, and 92.9% stored cells at temperatures below -150 ◦ C . However, other prac‑ tices varied widely. Additional post-collection processing was performed by 53.8% of respondents. DMSO concen‑ trations ranged from 5 to 15%, with diverse combinations of supplementary media. Notably, 28.6% of patients did not undergo post-thaw quality assessment tests. Conclusion This study identified significant heterogeneity in PBSC processing practices across Korean transplant centers. These findings underscore the need for evidence-based standardized guidelines to ensure consistent product quality and improve transplantation outcomes.

Purpose: In Korea, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) mandates patient participation in outpatient multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings as part of national cancer quality assessment. However, the necessity of involving patients and families in MDT discussions remains debatable. This study explored international expert perspectives on patient participation in gastric cancer MDTs. Methods: A cross-national expert survey was conducted in September 2021 among 15 gastric cancer specialists from Korea, China, Japan, Singapore, and the United States. The survey assessed the frequency of patient and family member attendance, perceived pros and cons, and preferences regarding mandatory versus selective involvement. Additionally, MDT structures and policies were reviewed by countries. Results: Most respondents reported that patients and families rarely or never attend MDT meetings: nine stated that patients are never included, three reported “usually not,” and three indicated “sometimes.” None consistently included patients. The most cited benefits were sharing opinions with patients and families simultaneously, followed by improved explanation of treatment and legal protection. Major concerns included hindered discussion, inefficiency, and logistical challenges. Only four respondents supported routine participation, while 11 favored case-dependent involvement. Conclusion International experts do not widely support mandatory patient participation in MDT meetings. A flexible approach that allows MDTs to operate with or without patient involvement may better reflect actual clinical practice.

Background: Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by tumors in multiple endocrine organs, caused by variants in the MEN1 gene. This study analyzed the clinical and genetic features of MEN1 in a Korean cohort, identifying prevalent manifestations and genetic variants, including novel variants. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 117 MEN1 patients treated at three tertiary centers in Korea between January 2012 and September 2022. Patient demographics, tumor manifestations, outcomes, and MEN1 genetic testing results were collected. Variants were classified using American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and French Oncogenetics Network of Neuroendocrine Tumors propositions (TENGEN) guidelines. Results: A total of 117 patients were enrolled, including 55 familial cases, with a mean age at diagnosis of 37.4±15.3 years. Primary hyperparathyroidism was identified as the most common presentation (84.6%). The prevalence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) was 77.8% (n=91) and 56.4% (n=66), respectively. Genetic testing revealed 61 distinct MEN1 variants in 101 patients, with 18 being novel. Four variants were reclassified according to the TENGEN guidelines. Patients with truncating variants (n=72) exhibited a higher prevalence of PitNETs compared to those with non-truncating variants (n=25) (59.7% vs. 36.0%, P=0.040). Conclusion The association between truncating variants and an increased prevalence of PitNETs in MEN1 underscores the importance of genetic characterization in guiding the clinical management of this disease. Our study sheds light on the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 among the Korean population.

Objectives: This study aims to examine the differences in spectral analysis of waking electroencephalography (EEG) patterns between patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) experiencing excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and matched healthy participants, to gain insights into the neurophysiological underpinnings of daytime impairments. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted involving 17 patients with moderate to severe OSA confirmed by overnight polysomnography (PSG). These patients had ≥15 per hour apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) and ≥11 Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). EEG recordings were captured within 30 minutes of awakening. A corresponding group of the equal number of age and sex-matched healthy participants was also analyzed for comparative purposes. Spectral analysis of quantitative EEG (qEEG) of patients with OSA compared with that of an equal number of age- and sex-matched healthy participants. Results: The analysis included 17 patients (16 males, average age 57.2 years) with moderate to severe OSA experiencing EDS (mean AHI 38.1±20.5; ESS 14.4±3.2). The patients with OSA exhibited altered sleep architecture during diagnostic PSG, significantly higher EEG delta band power in the frontal regions upon awakening after night sleep, and decreased connection of delta band in frontal area than normal participants (3.78±5.53 vs. 3.22±0.98 μV2, p=0.03). Conclusions The study demonstrated difference in delta activity and connectivity in the frontal area between patients with OSA experiencing EDS and the control group. These findings suggest awakening qEEG in OSA may helpful to guide or enhance understanding of daytime functional impairment and EDS.

Transient global amnesia (TGA) and transient epileptic amnesia (TEA) are inherently challenging to diagnose and share many similarities, which can easily lead to confusion. In this report, we present a case of a 57-year-old female patient experienced recurrent transient amnesia with incidentally found chronic ischemic temporo-parietal lesion including hippocampus and also revealed frequent interictal epileptiform discharges in acute period which can be features of TEA. We aim to explore the differences between TEA and TGA through this confusing case and when further evaluation may be necessary.