Purpose: While MRI-based tumor regression grade (mrTRG) has shown promise in evaluating pathologic response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in rectal cancer, its ability to predict pathologic complete response remains limited.This study aimed to enhance mrTRG’s diagnostic performance in predicting ypT0–1N0 status, a key factor in considering non-radical management after CCRT for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Methods: This retrospective study included 430 patients with LARC who underwent radical resection following CCRT at a single referral hospital between April 2018 and September 2024. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors associated with achieving ypT0–1N0 status. The diagnostic performances of mrTRG1–2 alone and in combination with other factors were assessed by comparing sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV), negative-predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC). Results: Ninety-three patients (21.6%) achieved ypT0–1N0. In the multivariable analysis, fungating type, cT1–2, and mrTRG1–2 were independent predictors for ypT0–1N0. Integrating mrTRG with gross tumor type yielded the highest AUC of 0.689 among the combined models. For predicting ypT0–1N0, the combination of mrTRG and gross tumor type improved PPV (79.2% vs. 41.5% for mrTRG alone) while also demonstrating enhanced sensitivity compared with ycT0–1N0, the conventional MRI-based predictor (40.9% vs. 22.6%). Conclusion This study demonstrated that combining mrTRG and gross tumor type improved the PPV of mrTRG in predicting ypT0–1N0 after CCRT in LARC. Further studies are warranted to validate the role of gross tumor type in refining predictive systems for selecting candidates for non-radical treatment.

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: Daily usage of facial masks during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic influenced on facial dermatoses. Objective: This study investigated the impact of mask-wearing habits on facial dermatoses. Methods: A nationwide, observational, questionnaire-based survey was conducted from July through August 2021, involving 20 hospitals in Korea. Results: Among 1,958 facial dermatoses, 75.9% of patients experienced aggravation or development of new-onset facial dermatoses after wearing masks. In aggravated or newly developed acne patients (543 out of 743), associated factors were healthcare provider, female gender, and a long duration of mask-wearing. Irritating symptoms, xerosis, and hyperpigmentation were more frequently observed in this group. Aggravated or newly developed rosacea patients (515 out of 660) were likely to be female, young, and have a long duration of mask-wearing per day. Seborrheic dermatitis patients who experienced aggravation or de novo development (132 out of 184) were younger, and they more frequently involved the chin and jaw in addition to the nasolabial folds and both cheeks. Contact dermatitis patients (132 out of 147) with aggravation or de novo development tended to be female, involve both cheeks, and complain of pruritus. Aggravated or newly developed atopic dermatitis patients (165 out of 224) were more likely to be female, and had a higher baseline investigator global assessment score before mask-wearing. Conclusion Clinical features and factors related to aggravation were different according to the types of facial dermatoses.

Background: More than half of acne patients have truncal acne on their chest, back, and shoulders. However, since most studies on acne have focused on the face, data on clinical characteristics and proper management for truncal acne are insufficient. Objective: To establish a Korean Acne Rosacea Society (KARS) consensus for experts’ perception and treatment patterns of truncal acne. Methods: We conducted two rounds of the Dephi technique to gather expert opinion and reach a consensus on truncal acne. The first round comprised 48 questionnaires focusing on various aspects such as epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and more, while second rounds consisted of 26 questionnaires. Results: A total of 36 dermatologists (36/38 KARS members, 94.7%) completed this survey. In the first-round survey, consensus was reached on 20 out of the 48 questions (41.7%). In the secondround questionnaire, consensus was achieved on 9 of the 26 questions (34.6%). The most unresponsive lesion to truncal acne treatment was scars (atrophic/hypertrophic). The most commonly used treatments for each non-inflammatory and inflammatory truncal acne lesions were selected to use topical retinoids (78.1% of the responders) and oral antibiotics (93.8% of the responders). Conclusion Our study has yielded valuable insights into the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and quality of life of patients with truncal acne. We anticipate that this study will inspire further comprehensive research for individuals with truncal acne.

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.

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.