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.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Background/Aims: Urgent endoscopic removal is required for gallstones impacted at the duodenal papilla. This study compared the clinical features of impacted papillary stones (IPS) with those of common bile duct stones without impaction. Methods: This study analyzed a common bile duct stone database from 2017 to 2023, identifying patients with IPS. The clinical features of IPS were compared with those of common bile duct stones without IPS (NIPS). Results: One hundred and eighty patients were analyzed; 45 had IPS. The mean age was 63.9 years, with a male predominance in the IPS group. The success rates of selective biliary cannulation were comparable between the IPS and NIPS groups. Multivariate analysis showed that IPS was associated with pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–12.17, p=0.026), bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS, OR 12.09, 95% CI: 3.92–37.33, p<0.001), and the presence of pus (OR 27.05, 95% CI: 4.92–148.85, p<0.001). The periampullary diverticulum (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.82, p=0.021) and the largest stone ≥10 mm (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, p=0.043) were inversely correlated with IPS. Conclusions IPS are associated with pancreatitis, BPDS, and acute suppurative cholangitis, whereas periampullary diverticulum and the stone size are inversely correlated with IPS.

Purpose: B-cell depleting therapies, including T-cell engager (TCE), are increasingly used for patients with hematologic malignancies, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between TCE therapy and COVID-19–related outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and B-cell lymphomas receiving B-cell depleting therapy. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with B-cell lymphoma, who were admitted to Seoul Natio-nal University Hospital with COVID-19 between September 2021 and February 2023, and received B-cell depleting therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with severe to critical COVID-19 and COVID-19–related mortality. Results: Of 54 patients with B-cell lymphomas and COVID-19 who received B-cell depleting therapy, 14 were treated with TCE (TCE group) and 40 with rituximab (RTX group). COVID-19–related mortality was higher in the TCE group than in the RTX group (57.1% vs. 12.5%, p=0.002). In multivariable analyses, TCE therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 38.76; p=0.024) and older age (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; p=0.035) were associated with severe to critical COVID-19. TCE therapy (aOR, 8.98; 95% CI, 1.48 to 54.40; p=0.017), older age (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.26; p=0.022), and prior bendamustine therapy (aOR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.17 to 51.65; p=0.034) were independent risk factors for COVID-19–related mortality. Conclusion B-cell lymphoma patients treated with TCE had significantly worse outcomes from COVID-19 than those treated with RTX. TCE therapy should be used with caution in B-cell lymphoma patients during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify clinical and radiologic characteristics that could predict response to atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 108 advanced HCC patients with intrahepatic lesions who were treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab. Two radiologists independently analyzed imaging characteristics of the index tumor on pretreatment computed tomography. Predictive factors associated with progressive disease (PD) at the best response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, ver. 1.1 were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Results: Of 108 patients with a median PFS of 15 weeks, 40 (37.0%) had PD during treatment. Factors associated with PD included the presence of extrahepatic metastases (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 14.35; p=0.03), the infiltrative appearance of the tumor (aOR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.05 to 8.93; p=0.04), and the absence of arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE) (aOR, 6.34; 95% CI, 2.18 to 18.47; p < 0.001). Patients with two or more of these factors had a PD of 66.7% and a median PFS of 8 weeks, indicating a significantly worse outcome compared to the patients with one or no of these factors. Conclusion In patients with advanced HCC treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment, the absence of APHE, infiltrative appearance of the intrahepatic tumor, and presence of extrahepatic metastases were associated with poor response and survival. Evaluation of early response may be necessary in patients with these factors.