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.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

Background: and Purpose Patients with cluster headache (CH) exhibit impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, there have been few studies related to the HRQoL of patients with CH from Asian backgrounds. This study aimed to determine the impact of CH on HRQoL and to identify the factors affecting HRQoL in patients with CH during cluster periods. Methods: This prospective study enrolled patients with CH from 17 headache clinics in South Korea between September 2016 and February 2021. The study aimed to determine HRQoL in patients with CH using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index and the time trade-off (TTO) method. Age- and sex-matched headache-free participants were recruited as a control group. Results: The study included 423 patients with CH who experienced a cluster period at the time. EQ-5D scores were lower in patients with CH (0.88±0.43, mean±standard deviation) than in the controls (0.99±0.33, p<0.001). The TTO method indicated that 58 (13.6%) patients with CH exhibited moderate-to-severe HRQoL deterioration. The HRQoL states in patients with CH were associated with current smoking patterns, headache severity, frequency, and duration, and scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), 6-item Headache Impact Test, and 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the HRQoL states in patients with CH were negatively correlated with the daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, and GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores. Conclusions Patients with CH experienced a worse quality of life during cluster periods compared with the headache-free controls, but the degree of HRQoL deterioration varied among them. The daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, anxiety, and depression were factors associated with HRQoL deterioration severity in patients with CH.

Background: and Purpose Focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) is one of the most common causes of drug-resistant epilepsy, and necessitates a multimodal evaluation to ensure optimal surgical treatment. This study aimed to determine the supportive value of the morphometric analysis program (MAP) in detecting FCD using data from a single institution in Korea. Methods: To develop a standard reference for the MAP, normal-looking MRIs by two scanners that are frequently used in this center were chosen. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy and FCD after surgery were candidates for the analysis. The three-dimensional T1-weighted MRI scans of the patients were analyzed as test cases using the MAP. Results: The MRI scans of 87 patients were included in the analysis. The radiologist detected abnormal findings correlated with FCD (RAD positive [RAD(+)]) in 34 cases (39.1%), while the MAP could detect FCD in 25.3% of cases. A combination of the MAP (MAP[+] cases) with interpretations by the radiologist increased the detection to 42.5% (37 cases). The lesion detection rate was not different according to the type of reference scanners except in one case. MAP(+)/RAD(-) presented in three cases, all of which had FCD type IIa. The detection rate was slightly higher using the same kind of scanner as a reference, but not significantly (35.0% vs. 22.4% p=0.26). Conclusions The results of postprocessing in the MAP for detecting FCD did not depend on the type of reference scanner, and the MAP was the strongest in detecting FCD IIa. We suggested that the MAP could be widely utilized without developing institutional standards and could become an effective tool for detecting FCD lesions.