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.

Objective: Adenomyosis impacts pregnancy outcomes, although there is a lack of consensus regarding the actual effects. It is likely, however, that the severity of adenomyosis or ultrasound findings or timing of diagnosis can have different effects on adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). Methods: In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of the timing of adenomyosis diagnosis on pregnancy outcomes. Singleton pregnant women who delivered between 2017 and 2022 were analyzed based on the timing of adenomyosis diagnosis, using a national database. The final cohort was classified into three groups: 1) group 1, without adenomyosis; 2) group 2, those diagnosed with adenomyosis before pregnancy; and 3) group 3, those diagnosed with adenomyosis during pregnancy. Results: A total of 1,226,475 cases were ultimately included in this study. Women with a diagnosis of adenomyosis had a significantly higher risk of APOs including hypertensive disorder during pregnancy (HDP), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), postpartum hemorrhage, placental abruption, preterm birth, and delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant even after adjusting for covariates. In particular, concerning HDP, the risk was highest in group 3 (group 2: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.15 vs. group 3: aOR, 1.36). However, the highest GDM risk was in group 2 (GDM; group 2: aOR, 1.24 vs. group 3: aOR, 1.04). Conclusion The increased risk of APO differed depending on the timing of adenomyosis diagnosis. Therefore, efforts for more careful monitoring and prevention of APOs may be necessary when such women become pregnant.

Purpose: This study explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in optimizing radiotherapy protocols for personalized cancer treatment. Specifically, it investigates the role of AI-based segmentation tools in improving accuracy and efficiency across various anatomical regions. Methods: A dataset of 500 anonymized patient computed tomography scans from Chungbuk National University Hospital was used to develop and validate AI models for segmenting organs-atrisk. The models were tailored for five anatomical regions: head and neck, chest, abdomen, breast, and pelvis. Performance was evaluated using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Surface Distance, and the 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95). Results: The AI models achieved high segmentation accuracy for large, well-defined structures such as the brain, lungs, and liver, with DSC values exceeding 0.95 in many cases. However, challenges were observed for smaller or complex structures, including the optic chiasm and rectum, with instances of segmentation failure and infinity values for HD95. These findings highlight the variability in performance depending on anatomical complexity and structure size. Conclusions AI-based segmentation tools demonstrate significant potential to streamline radiotherapy workflows, reduce inter-observer variability, and enhance treatment accuracy. Despite challenges with smaller structures, the integration of AI enables dynamic, patient-specific adaptations to anatomical changes, contributing to more precise and effective cancer treatments.Future work should focus on refining models for anatomically complex structures and validating these methods in diverse clinical settings.

Purpose: This study explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in optimizing radiotherapy protocols for personalized cancer treatment. Specifically, it investigates the role of AI-based segmentation tools in improving accuracy and efficiency across various anatomical regions. Methods: A dataset of 500 anonymized patient computed tomography scans from Chungbuk National University Hospital was used to develop and validate AI models for segmenting organs-atrisk. The models were tailored for five anatomical regions: head and neck, chest, abdomen, breast, and pelvis. Performance was evaluated using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Surface Distance, and the 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95). Results: The AI models achieved high segmentation accuracy for large, well-defined structures such as the brain, lungs, and liver, with DSC values exceeding 0.95 in many cases. However, challenges were observed for smaller or complex structures, including the optic chiasm and rectum, with instances of segmentation failure and infinity values for HD95. These findings highlight the variability in performance depending on anatomical complexity and structure size. Conclusions AI-based segmentation tools demonstrate significant potential to streamline radiotherapy workflows, reduce inter-observer variability, and enhance treatment accuracy. Despite challenges with smaller structures, the integration of AI enables dynamic, patient-specific adaptations to anatomical changes, contributing to more precise and effective cancer treatments.Future work should focus on refining models for anatomically complex structures and validating these methods in diverse clinical settings.

Purpose: This study explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in optimizing radiotherapy protocols for personalized cancer treatment. Specifically, it investigates the role of AI-based segmentation tools in improving accuracy and efficiency across various anatomical regions. Methods: A dataset of 500 anonymized patient computed tomography scans from Chungbuk National University Hospital was used to develop and validate AI models for segmenting organs-atrisk. The models were tailored for five anatomical regions: head and neck, chest, abdomen, breast, and pelvis. Performance was evaluated using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Surface Distance, and the 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95). Results: The AI models achieved high segmentation accuracy for large, well-defined structures such as the brain, lungs, and liver, with DSC values exceeding 0.95 in many cases. However, challenges were observed for smaller or complex structures, including the optic chiasm and rectum, with instances of segmentation failure and infinity values for HD95. These findings highlight the variability in performance depending on anatomical complexity and structure size. Conclusions AI-based segmentation tools demonstrate significant potential to streamline radiotherapy workflows, reduce inter-observer variability, and enhance treatment accuracy. Despite challenges with smaller structures, the integration of AI enables dynamic, patient-specific adaptations to anatomical changes, contributing to more precise and effective cancer treatments.Future work should focus on refining models for anatomically complex structures and validating these methods in diverse clinical settings.

Purpose: This study explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in optimizing radiotherapy protocols for personalized cancer treatment. Specifically, it investigates the role of AI-based segmentation tools in improving accuracy and efficiency across various anatomical regions. Methods: A dataset of 500 anonymized patient computed tomography scans from Chungbuk National University Hospital was used to develop and validate AI models for segmenting organs-atrisk. The models were tailored for five anatomical regions: head and neck, chest, abdomen, breast, and pelvis. Performance was evaluated using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Surface Distance, and the 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95). Results: The AI models achieved high segmentation accuracy for large, well-defined structures such as the brain, lungs, and liver, with DSC values exceeding 0.95 in many cases. However, challenges were observed for smaller or complex structures, including the optic chiasm and rectum, with instances of segmentation failure and infinity values for HD95. These findings highlight the variability in performance depending on anatomical complexity and structure size. Conclusions AI-based segmentation tools demonstrate significant potential to streamline radiotherapy workflows, reduce inter-observer variability, and enhance treatment accuracy. Despite challenges with smaller structures, the integration of AI enables dynamic, patient-specific adaptations to anatomical changes, contributing to more precise and effective cancer treatments.Future work should focus on refining models for anatomically complex structures and validating these methods in diverse clinical settings.

Purpose: This study explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in optimizing radiotherapy protocols for personalized cancer treatment. Specifically, it investigates the role of AI-based segmentation tools in improving accuracy and efficiency across various anatomical regions. Methods: A dataset of 500 anonymized patient computed tomography scans from Chungbuk National University Hospital was used to develop and validate AI models for segmenting organs-atrisk. The models were tailored for five anatomical regions: head and neck, chest, abdomen, breast, and pelvis. Performance was evaluated using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Surface Distance, and the 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95). Results: The AI models achieved high segmentation accuracy for large, well-defined structures such as the brain, lungs, and liver, with DSC values exceeding 0.95 in many cases. However, challenges were observed for smaller or complex structures, including the optic chiasm and rectum, with instances of segmentation failure and infinity values for HD95. These findings highlight the variability in performance depending on anatomical complexity and structure size. Conclusions AI-based segmentation tools demonstrate significant potential to streamline radiotherapy workflows, reduce inter-observer variability, and enhance treatment accuracy. Despite challenges with smaller structures, the integration of AI enables dynamic, patient-specific adaptations to anatomical changes, contributing to more precise and effective cancer treatments.Future work should focus on refining models for anatomically complex structures and validating these methods in diverse clinical settings.

Purpose: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary disorder caused by germline mutation in TP53. Owing to the rarity of LFS, data on its clinical features are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of Korean patients with LFS. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent genetic counseling and confirmed with germline TP53 mutation in the National Cancer Center in Korea between 2011 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Data on family history with pedigree, types of mutation, clinical features, and prognosis were collected. Results: Fourteen patients with LFS were included in this study. The median age at diagnosis of the first tumor was 32 years. Missense and nonsense mutations were observed in 13 and one patients, respectively. The repeated mutations were p.Arg273His, p.Ala138Val, and pPro190Leu. The sister with breast cancer harbored the same mutation of p.Ala138Val. Seven patients had multiple primary cancers. Breast cancer was most frequently observed, and other types of tumor included sarcoma, thyroid cancer, pancreatic cancer, brain tumor, adrenocortical carcinoma, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, colon cancer, vaginal cancer, skin cancer, and leukemia. The median follow-up period was 51.5 months. Two and four patients showed local recurrence and distant metastasis, respectively. Two patients died of leukemia and pancreatic cancer 3 and 23 months after diagnosis, respectively. Conclusion This study provides information on different characteristics of patients with LFS, including types of mutation, types of cancer, and prognostic outcomes. For more appropriate management of these patients, proper genetic screening and multidisciplinary discussion are required.