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.

The submandibular displacement of a mandibular third molar residual root presents major challenges to oral and maxillofacial surgeons due to the proximity to critical anatomical structures such as the lingual nerve and sublingual artery. Preoperative imaging can approximate the location of the residual tooth root; however, accurately determining its exact position is difficult because of the dynamic nature of the mandible and the difficulty of realtime synchronization of imaging. This study presents the successful extraction of a residual mandibular third molar root in a 67-year-old female patient achieved using a magnetic field-based navigation system. The sublingually-displaced residual root was localized using the navigation system, marked using a virtual implant placement, and positioned by a hand piece using synchronized real-time sensor data. The root was successfully removed with a minimally-invasive approach. No complications occurred postoperatively, and follow-up showed no major issues. Due to the small size of the marker, ease of calibration, and independence from visual obstacles, magnetic field-based navigation systems are a promising tool for the removal of residual roots displaced into adjacent soft tissue.

The submandibular displacement of a mandibular third molar residual root presents major challenges to oral and maxillofacial surgeons due to the proximity to critical anatomical structures such as the lingual nerve and sublingual artery. Preoperative imaging can approximate the location of the residual tooth root; however, accurately determining its exact position is difficult because of the dynamic nature of the mandible and the difficulty of realtime synchronization of imaging. This study presents the successful extraction of a residual mandibular third molar root in a 67-year-old female patient achieved using a magnetic field-based navigation system. The sublingually-displaced residual root was localized using the navigation system, marked using a virtual implant placement, and positioned by a hand piece using synchronized real-time sensor data. The root was successfully removed with a minimally-invasive approach. No complications occurred postoperatively, and follow-up showed no major issues. Due to the small size of the marker, ease of calibration, and independence from visual obstacles, magnetic field-based navigation systems are a promising tool for the removal of residual roots displaced into adjacent soft tissue.

In this paper, we review the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for gastrointestinal malignancies, focusing on primary and metastatic liver cancer, and recurrent rectal cancer. Technological advancements in radiotherapy have facilitated the direct delivery of high-dose radiation to tumors, while limiting normal tissue exposure, supporting the use of hypofractionation. Hypofractionated radiotherapy is particularly effective for primary and metastatic liver cancer where high-dose irradiation is crucial to achieve effective local control. For recurrent rectal cancer, the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy offers a promising approach for re-irradiation, balancing efficacy and safety in patients who have been administered previous pelvic radiotherapy and in whom salvage surgery is not applicable. Nevertheless, the potential for radiation-induced liver disease and gastrointestinal complications presents challenges when applying hypofractionation to gastrointestinal organs. Given the lack of universal consensus on hypofractionation regimens and the dose constraints for primary and metastatic liver cancer, as well as for recurrent rectal cancer, this review aims to facilitate clinical decision-making by pointing to potential regimens and dose constraints, underpinned by a comprehensive review of existing clinical studies and guidelines.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) has become a trend in the modern era, as advances in RT techniques, including intensity-modulated RT and image-guided RT, enable the precise and safe delivery of high-dose radiation. Hypofractionated RT offers convenience and can reduce the financial burden on patients by decreasing the number of fractions. Furthermore, hypofractionated RT is potentially more beneficial for tumors with a low α/β ratio compared with conventional fractionation RT. Therefore, hypofractionated RT has been investigated for various primary cancers and has gained status as a standard treatment recommended in the guidelines. In genitourinary (GU) cancer, especially prostate cancer, the efficacy, and safety of various hypofractionated dose schemes have been evaluated in numerous prospective clinical studies, establishing the standard hypofractionated RT regimen. Hypofractionated RT has also been explored for gynecological (GY) cancer, yielding relevant evidence in recent years. In this review, we aimed to summarize the representative evidence and current trends in clinical studies on hypofractionated RT for GU and GY cancers addressing several key questions. In addition, the objective is to offer suggestions for the available dose regimens for hypofractionated RT by reviewing protocols from previous clinical studies.

Purpose: This study compared the diagnostic performance of quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) with that of conventional ultrasonography (US) in assessing hepatic steatosis among individuals undergoing health screening using magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard. Methods: This single-center prospective study enrolled 427 participants who underwent abdominal MRI and US. Measurements included the attenuation coefficient in tissue attenuation imaging (TAI) and the scatter-distribution coefficient in tissue scatter-distribution imaging (TSI). The correlation between QUS and MRI-PDFF was evaluated. The diagnostic capabilities of QUS, conventional B-mode US, and their combined models for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% (MRI-PDFF ≥5%) and ≥10% (MRI-PDFF ≥10%) were compared by analyzing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Additionally, clinical risk factors influencing the diagnostic performance of QUS were identified using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results: TAI and TSI were strongly correlated with MRI-PDFF (r=0.759 and r=0.802, respectively; both P<0.001) and demonstrated good diagnostic performance in detecting and grading hepatic steatosis. The combination of QUS and B-mode US resulted in the highest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.947 and 0.975 for detecting hepatic fat content of ≥5% and ≥10%, respectively; both P<0.05), compared to TAI, TSI, or B-mode US alone (AUCs: 0.887, 0.910, 0.878 for ≥5% and 0.951, 0.922, 0.875 for ≥10%, respectively). The independent determinants of QUS included skinliver capsule distance (β=7.134), hepatic fibrosis (β=4.808), alanine aminotransferase (β=0.202), triglyceride levels (β=0.027), and diabetes mellitus (β=3.710). Conclusion QUS is a useful and effective screening tool for detecting and grading hepatic steatosis during health checkups.

Objectives: . Although mandibular advancement device (MAD) treatment is effective for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), some concerns remain regarding its potential therapeutic impact and side effects. Thus, we developed a novel MAD that auto-titrates depending on its position in patients with OSA. We conducted a clinical trial to determine the efficacy of an auto-titrating mandibular advancement device (AMAD) for treating OSA. Methods: . Fourteen patients diagnosed with OSA participated in this study. Polysomnography (PSG) was performed at the beginning of the clinical trial, and after 3 months of treatment, PSG with AMAD in situ was conducted. Results: . The mean scores for the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and STOP-Bang were 8.21±4.21 and 5.00±1.00, respectively. After 3 months of AMAD treatment, the STOP-Bang scores improved to 3.75±1.06; however, the ESS scores did not show a significant change. Additionally, we observed statistically significant improvements in several respiratory parameters in the PSG data following AMAD treatment. These included reductions in the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) (from 32.85±21.71 to 12.93±10.70), supine AHI (from 45.91±23.58 to 15.59±12.76), and lateral AHI (from 13.94±10.95 to 5.49±7.40). Improvements were also noted in the lowest O2 saturation (from 79.71±6.22 to 84.00± 5.71), total arousal number (from 191.14±112.07 to 86.57±48.80), and arousal index (from 33.76±21.00 to 15.05± 8.42). However, there were no significant changes in total sleep time, sleep efficiency, or mean oxygen saturation. Additionally, no major side effects were observed during treatment, specifically related to tooth or jaw pain. Conclusion . Our clinical trial found that AMAD improved PSG parameters and reduced the incidence of common side effects. Therefore, AMAD may be an effective alternative treatment for OSA.

In this paper, we review the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for gastrointestinal malignancies, focusing on primary and metastatic liver cancer, and recurrent rectal cancer. Technological advancements in radiotherapy have facilitated the direct delivery of high-dose radiation to tumors, while limiting normal tissue exposure, supporting the use of hypofractionation. Hypofractionated radiotherapy is particularly effective for primary and metastatic liver cancer where high-dose irradiation is crucial to achieve effective local control. For recurrent rectal cancer, the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy offers a promising approach for re-irradiation, balancing efficacy and safety in patients who have been administered previous pelvic radiotherapy and in whom salvage surgery is not applicable. Nevertheless, the potential for radiation-induced liver disease and gastrointestinal complications presents challenges when applying hypofractionation to gastrointestinal organs. Given the lack of universal consensus on hypofractionation regimens and the dose constraints for primary and metastatic liver cancer, as well as for recurrent rectal cancer, this review aims to facilitate clinical decision-making by pointing to potential regimens and dose constraints, underpinned by a comprehensive review of existing clinical studies and guidelines.