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: Primary cicatricial alopecia (PCA) is a rare disease that causes irreversible destruction of hair follicles and affects the quality of life (QOL). Objective: We aimed to investigate the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, and real-world diagnosis and treatment status of patients with PCA. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was administered to patients with PCA and their dermatologists. Patients aged between 19 and 75 years who visited one of 27 dermatology departments between September 2021 and September 2022 were included. Results: In total, 274 patients were included. The male-to-female ratio was 1:1.47, with a mean age of 45.7 years. Patients with neutrophilic and mixed PCA were predominantly male and younger than those with lymphocytic PCA. Among patients with lymphocytic PCA, lichen planopilaris was the most common type, and among those with neutrophilic PCA, folliculitis decalvans was the most common type. Among the total patients, 28.8% were previously diagnosed with PCA, 47.0% were diagnosed with PCA at least 6 months after their first hospital visit, 20.0% received early treatment within 3 months of disease onset, and 54.4% received steady treatment. More than half of the patients had a moderate to severe impairment in QOL. Topical/intralesional steroid injections were the most common treatment. Systemic immunosuppressants were frequently prescribed to patients with lymphocytic PCA, and antibiotics were mostly prescribed to patients with neutrophilic PCA. Conclusion This study provides information on the disease awareness, medical use behavior, QOL, diagnosis, and treatment status of Korean patients with PCA. This can help dermatologists educate patients with PCA to understand the necessity for early diagnosis and steady treatment.

Background: and Purpose The congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (CHA2DS2-VASc) and hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) scores have been validated in estimating the risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding, respectively, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study investigated stroke-specific predictors of major bleeding in patients with stroke and AF who were taking oral anticoagulants (OACs). Methods: Subjects were selected from patients enrolled in the Korean ATrial fibrillaTion EvaluatioN regisTry in Ischemic strOke patieNts (K-ATTENTION) nationwide multicenter registry between 2013 and 2015. Patients were excluded if they were not taking OACs, had no brain imaging data, or had intracranial bleeding directly related to the index stroke. Major bleeding was defined according to International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between clinical variables and major bleeding and Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to analyze event-free survival. Results: Of a total of 3,213 patients, 1,414 subjects (mean age of 72.6 years, 52.5% males) were enrolled in this study. Major bleeding was reported in 34 patients during the median follow-up period of 1.73 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, p=0.006), hypertension (HR 3.18, p=0.030), persistent AF type (HR 2.51, p=0.016), and initial hemoglobin level (HR 0.74, p=0.001) were independently associated with major bleeding risk. Except for hypertension, these associations remained significant after adjusting for the HAS-BLED score. Intracranial atherosclerosis presented a trend of association without statistical significance (HR 2.21, p=0.050). Conclusions This study found that major bleeding risk was independently associated with stroke-specific factors in anticoagulated patients with stroke and AF. This has the clinical implication that baseline characteristics of patients with stroke and AF should be considered in secondary prevention, which would bring the net clinical benefit of balancing recurrent stroke prevention with minimal bleeding complications.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Objectives: The clinical trajectories of adolescent-onset psychosis and bipolar disorder are worse than that of adult-onset cases. Although psychosis and bipolar disorder are more prevalent among those with neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD and autism spectrum disorder compared with the general population, the incidence during adolescence has not yet been explored. Methods: Out of 3,730 patients who visited the Department of Pediatric Psychiatry at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital between November 2008 and May 2021, patients with neurodevelopmental disorders who did not meet the criteria for psychosis or bipolar disorder and had at least one year of the follow-up period were selected. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to examine the cumulative incidence of psychosis and bipolar disorder in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders. Results: The sample included 591 patients with neurodevelopmental disorders (mean age 12.6 years, range 10-18 years). The 9-years cumulative incidences of psychosis and bipolar disorder are 1.3% (95% CI=0.2%-2.4%), 11.6% (95% CI=7.4%-15.6%), respectively. Conclusion Patients with neurodevelopmental disorders showed a high incidence of psychosis and bipolar disorder during adolescence. This suggests that patients diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders should be continuously evaluated and monitored of the occurrence of comorbidities during adolescence.

Background: and Purpose To evaluate the outcome events and bleeding complications of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-matched oral anticoagulant therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF from a nationwide multicenter registry (Korean ATrial fibrillaTion EvaluatioN regisTry in Ischemic strOke patieNts [K-ATTENTION]) between January 2013 and December 2015 were included in the study. Patients were divided into the ESC guideline-matched and the non-matched groups. The primary outcome was recurrence of any stroke during the 90-day follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, acute coronary syndrome, allcause mortality, and major hemorrhage. Propensity score matching and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of the treatments administered. Results: Among 2,321 eligible patients, 1,126 patients were 1:1 matched to the ESC guidelinematched and the non-matched groups. As compared with the non-matched group, the ESC guideline-matched group had a lower risk of any recurrent stroke (1.4% vs. 3.4%; odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.95). The risk of recurrent ischemic stroke was lower in the ESC guideline-matched group than in the non-matched group (0.9% vs. 2.7%; OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.88). There was no significant difference in the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions ESC guideline-matched oral anticoagulant therapy was associated with reduced risks of any stroke and ischemic stroke as compared with the non-matched therapy.