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.

Live-born cases of partial trisomy 12q are rare, and only a few fetuses with this unbalanced translocation have survived to term. To our knowledge, only about 40 patients have been reported as having 12q duplication, and among them are no Korean reports. Here, we report the first Korean case of siblings with a 12q24.22q24.33 duplication. An 11-year-old boy visited our clinic for short stature. He was born small for his gestational age and had distinctive facial features, a history of surgery for anorectal malformation, psychomotor delay, intellectual disabilities, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He had an older sister with similar clinical features. The chromosomal microarray of the patient and his sister showed identical results: a 16.2 Mb duplication of 12q24.22q24.33. They had an identical cutoff point, but their symptoms were not. Symptoms common to both included growth retardation, psychomotor delay, intellectual disability, ADHD, and small for their gestational age.

Purpose: Oxaliplatin, a component of the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) regimen, has a more favorable toxicity profile than cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). However, oxaliplatin can induce sensory neuropathy and cumulative, dose-related toxicities. Thus, the capecitabine maintenance regimen may achieve the maximum treatment effect while reducing the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with advanced GC between capecitabine maintenance and observation after 1st line XELOX chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients treated with six cycles of XELOX for advanced GC in six hospitals of the Catholic University of Korea were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine maintenance or observation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed using a two-sided log-rank test stratified at a 5% significance level. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 32 and 31 patients were randomized into the maintenance and observation groups, respectively. After randomization, the median number of capecitabine maintenance cycles was 6. The PFS was significantly higher in the maintenance group than the observation group (6.3 vs. 4.1 months, P=0.010). Overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (18.2 vs. 16.5 months, P=0.624). Toxicities, such as hand-foot syndrome, were reported in some maintenance group patients. Maintenance treatment was a significant factor associated with PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.250–0.890; P=0.020). Conclusions After 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy, capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged PFS compared with observation, and toxicity was manageable. Maintenance treatment was a significant prognostic factor associated with PFS.

Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Korea, need remains for pangenotypic regimens that can be used in the presence of hepatic impairment, comorbidities, or prior treatment failure. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir for 12 weeks in HCV-infected Korean adults. Methods: This Phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study included 2 cohorts. In Cohort 1, participants with HCV genotype 1 or 2 and who were treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with interferon-based treatments, received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir 400/100 mg/day. In Cohort 2, HCV genotype 1 infected individuals who previously received an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen ≥ 4 weeks received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir 400/100/100 mg/day. Decompensated cirrhosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary endpoint was SVR12, defined as HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL 12 weeks following treatment. Results: Of 53 participants receiving sofosbuvir–velpatasvir, 52 (98.1%) achieved SVR12. The single participant who did not achieve SVR12 experienced an asymptomatic Grade 3 ASL/ALT elevation on day 15 and discontinued treatment. The event resolved without intervention. All 33 participants (100%) treated with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir achieved SVR 12. Overall, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir were safe and well tolerated. Three participants (5.6%) in Cohort 1 and 1 participant (3.0%) in Cohort 2 had serious adverse events, but none were considered treatment-related. No deaths or grade 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir or sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir was safe and resulted in high SVR12 rates in Korean HCV patients.

Purpose: The treatment of male breast cancer (MBC) has been extrapolated from female breast cancer (FBC) because of its rarity despite their different clinicopathologic characteristics. We aimed to investigate the distribution of intrinsic subtypes based on immunohistochemistry, their clinical impact, and treatment pattern in clinical practice through a multicenter study in Korea. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 248 MBC patients from 18 institutions across the country from January 1995 to July 2016. Results: The median age of MBC patients was 63 years (range, 25 to 102 years). Among 148 intrinsic subtype classified patients, 61 (41.2%), 44 (29.7%), 29 (19.5%), and 14 (9.5%) were luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and triple-negative breast cancer, respectively. Luminal A subtype showed trends for superior survival compared to other subtypes. Most hormone receptor-positive patients (166 patients, 82.6%) received adjuvant endocrine treatment. Five-year completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with superior disease-free survival (DFS) in patients classified with an intrinsic subtype (hazard ratio [HR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.49; p=0.002) and in all patients (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; p=0.003). Conclusion Distribution of subtypes of MBC was similar to FBC and luminal type A was most common. Overall survival tended to be improved for luminal A subtype, although there was no statistical significance. Completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with prolonged DFS in intrinsic subtype classified patients. MBC patients tended to receive less treatment. MBC patients should receive standard treatment according to guidelines as FBC patients.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in eyes with Glaucoma Ahmed Valve implants. Methods: The charts of 11 patients who underwent PKP and 11 who underwent DSAEK between February 2016 and June 2018 were retrospectively reviewed; all patients previously underwent Ahmed valve implant surgery. The best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and endothelial cell count were compared 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. Graft rejection and graft failure were also evaluated during follow-up. The survival rates were compared using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results: The difference in graft survival rates of the PKP and DSAEK groups was not significant (p = 0.295); however, graft failure occurred earlier in the PKP group (12.9 ± 10.1 vs. 18.8 ± 5.3 months). The postoperative best corrected visual acuity of the PKP group had improved at 1 (p = 0.027) and 3 (p = 0.017) months, while the DSAEK group showed significant improvement at 1, 3, and 6 months (all p = 0.005). Intergroup analysis showed better visual prognosis of the DSAEK group at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery (p = 0.023, p = 0.007, and p = 0.004, respectively). Conclusions In our study, the two corneal transplantation methods did not have significantly different graft survival rates; however, graft failure occured later in the DSAEK group and the postoperative visual acuity was better than in the PKP group. Although further study is needed, performing DSAEK in patients with an Ahmed valve implant seems to be a good alternative to PKP.

The mutational and epigenetic landscape of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has become increasingly well understood in recent years, informing on biological targets for precision medicine. Among the most notable findings was the recognition of mutational hot-spots in the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes. In this review, we provide an overview on the IDH1/2 mutation landscape in Korean AML patients, and compare it with available public data. We also discuss the role of IDH1/2 mutations as biomarkers and drug targets.Taken together, occurrence of IDH1/2 mutations is becoming increasingly important in AML treatment, thus requiring thorough examination and follow-up throughout the clinical course of the disease.

Purpose: Use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors improved survival outcome of hormone receptor (HR) positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, including Asian population. However, Asian real-world data of palbociclib is limited. We analyzed the real-world clinical practice patterns and outcome in HR-positive, MBC Asian patients treated with palbociclib. Materials and Methods: Between April 2017 to November 2019, 169 HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor-2–negative MBC patients treated with letrozole or fulvestrant plus palbocilib were enrolled from eight institutions. Survival outcome (progression-free survival [PFS]), treatment response and toxicity profiles were analyzed. Results: Median age of letrozole plus palbociclib (145 patients, 85.8%) and fulvestrant plus palbociclib (24 patients, 14.2%) was 58 and 53.5 years, with median follow-up duration of 14.63 months (range 0.2 to 33.9 months). Median PFS (mPFS) of letrozole plus palbociclib and fulvestrant plus palbociclib was 25.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.1 to not reached) and 6.37 months (95% CI, 5.33 to not reached), comparable to previous phase 3 trials. In letrozole plus palbociclib arm, luminal A (hazard ratio, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.20 to 6.80; p=0.017) and patients with good performance (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1 [hazard ratio, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.70 to 7.96]) showed better mPFS. In fulvestrant plus palbociclib group, chemotherapy naïve patients showed better mPFS (hazard ratio, 12.51, 95% CI, 1.59 to 99.17; p=0.017). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia (letrozole 86.3%, fulvestrant 88.3%). Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first real-world data of palbociclib reported in Asia. Palbociclib showed comparable benefit to previous phase 3 trials in Asian patients during daily clinical practice.