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: Prostate cancer ranks as the second most common cancer in men globally, representing a significant cause of cancer-related mortality. Metastasis, the spread of cancer cells from the primary site to distant organs, remains a major challenge in managing prostate cancer. Pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 4 (PDK4) is implicated in the regulation of aerobic glycolysis, emerging as a potential player in various cancers. However, its role in prostate cancer remains unclear. This study aims to analyze PDK4 expression in prostate cancer cells and human samples, and to explore the gene's clinical significance. Materials and Methods: PDK4 expression was detected in cell lines and human tissue samples. Migration ability was analyzed using Matrigel-coated invasion chambers. Human samples were obtained from the Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital. Results: PDK4 expression was elevated in prostate cancer cell lines compared to normal prostate cells, with particularly high levels in DU145 and LnCap cell lines. PDK4 knockdown in these cell lines suppressed their invasion ability, indicating a potential role of PDK4 in prostate cancer metastasis. Furthermore, our results revealed alterations in epithelial-mesenchymal transition markers and downstream signaling molecules following PDK4 suppression, suggesting its involvement in the modulation of invasion-related pathways. Furthermore, PDK4 expression was increased in prostate cancer tissues, especially in castration-resistant prostate cancer, compared to normal prostate tissues, with PSA and PDK4 expression showing a significantly positive correlation. Conclusions PDK4 expression in prostate cancer is associated with tumor invasion and castration status. Further validation is needed to demonstrate its effectiveness as a therapeutic target.

Purpose: Esophagojejunostomy leakage (EJL) remains one of the most critical complications following total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the evolving therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes of EJL using data from a large-scale multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Among 6,577 patients who underwent total gastrectomy or proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction at nine institutions from 2003 to 2024, 196 (3.0%) developed EJL. Of these, 162 patients with comprehensive clinical data were included in the final analysis. The study examined treatment modalities, changes in management over time, patient characteristics, surgical variables, and clinical outcomes. Four groups were defined according to treatment approach: conservative, endoscopic, reoperation, and multimodal (combined) therapy. Results: Endoscopic therapy was first introduced in 2011 and has progressively supplanted reoperation, now comprising 32.5% of cases. The average time to EJL diagnosis was 8.4 days after surgery. Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.1% (10/162). When conservative management was excluded, endoscopic treatment demonstrated the highest rate of therapeutic success (94.3%, p = 0.004). Both the duration until diet resumption and length of hospital stay were notably reduced in the endoscopic and conservative groups compared with reoperation and multimodal therapy (p < 0.001). Moreover, although the highest post-leakage hospitalization costs were observed with multimodal treatment (p < 0.001), overall hospitalization expenses were significantly lower for patients managed conservatively or with endoscopic intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion Over the past two decades, management of EJL has shifted toward endoscopic approaches. Endoscopic therapies yield superior clinical outcomes and should be considered a primary option for appropriate candidates.

Purpose: This study examined the effects of residual fragments (RF) on the patient-reported quality of life (QOL) after kidney stone surgery, such as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), using the Korean version of the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life Questionnaire (K-WISQOL). Materials and Methods: The medical records of 156 patients who underwent RIRS or PCNL and completed the preoperative and postoperative K-WISQOL from January 2021 to September 2023 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into RIRS and PCNL groups by the surgical method. The participants completed the K-WISQOL within four weeks before and after treatment. The patients’ baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, and K-WISQOL scores were compared according to the presence of RF in each surgical group. Results: Of the 156 patients, 95 underwent RIRS, and 61 underwent PCNL. In the RIRS group, the patients’ baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes were similar in the stone-free (SF) and RF subgroups. The changes in all K-WISQOL domain scores and total scores were similar in the two subgroups. In the PCNL group, the RF subgroup had a significantly higher proportion of staghorn stones, a significantly larger mean stone diameter and significantly longer operation time than those of the SF subgroup. But, the changes in all K-WISQOL domain scores and total scores were not significantly different between the two subgroups, as observed in the RIRS group. Conclusions This study showed that the presence of RFs after endoscopic kidney surgery did not affect the short-term patient-reported QOL regardless of the surgical methods.

Purpose: This study conducted an epidemiological investigation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa urinary tract infections (UTIs) following cystoscopy at Chilgok Kyungpook National University Hospital. Materials and Methods: From May 16 to July 15, 2022, among 353 patients who underwent cystoscopy, 6 patients reported febrile UTIs following cystoscopy. They were admitted to the urology department of the hospital after visiting the Emergency Department. P. aeruginosa was found in the urine cultures of 4 of the 6 hospitalized patients. During the epidemiological investigation, no changes were observed in factors such as the reprocessing procedures for endoscopic equipment. Therefore, microbiological tests were performed using environmental samples derived from the endoscopic equipment and cleaning process. Results: P. aeruginosa was identified in a dual-enzymatic detergent (EmPower) used during the endoscope cleaning process. After changing the disinfectant and cleaning process, no further bacterial growth was observed in subsequent microbiological tests. Conclusions This study highlights the potential of cystoscopes to serve as reservoirs for bacteria due to inadequate cleaning during the disinfection process. To minimize the risk of infections following cystoscopy, it is important to pay close attention to the reprocessing and cleaning of cystoscopes.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires significant experiences and skills and has various procedure-related complications, some of which can be severe and even result in the death of patients. Expanding ERCP availability has the advantage of increasing accessibility for patients. However, ERCP poses a substantial risk if performed without proper quality management. ERCP quality management is essential for both ensuring safe and successful procedures and meeting the social demands for enhanced healthcare competitiveness and quality assurance. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association established a task force to develop ERCP quality indicators (QIs) tailored to the Korean medical environment. Key questions for five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, and four post-procedure measures were formulated based on a literature search related to ERCP QIs and a comprehensive clinical review conducted by experts. The statements and recommendations regarding each QI item were selected through peer review. The developed ERCP QIs were reviewed by external experts based on the latest available evidence at the time of development.These domestically tailored ERCP QIs are expected to contribute considerably to improving ERCP quality in Korea.

Background: This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged 50 to 70 years based on the type of prosthetic valve used. Methods: We compared patients who underwent mechanical AVR to those who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our institution between January 2000 and March 2019. Competing risk analysis and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method based on propensity score were employed for comparisons. Results: A total of 1,580 patients (984 patients with mechanical AVR; 596 patients with bioprosthetic AVR) were enrolled. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR groups (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.177).After IPTW adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group than in the mechanical AVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.80; p=0.014). Competing risk analysis revealed lower risks of stroke (sub-distributional hazard ratio [sHR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28–0.67; p<0.001) and anticoagulation-related bleeding (sHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23–0.53; p<0.001) in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conversely, the risk of aortic valve (AV) reintervention was higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group (sHR, 6.14; 95% CI, 3.17–11.93; p<0.001). Conclusion Among patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent surgical AVR, those receiving mechanical valves showed better survival than those with bioprosthetic valves.The mechanical AVR group exhibited a higher risk of stroke and anticoagulation-related bleeding, while the bioprosthetic AVR group showed a higher risk of AV reintervention.

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.