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.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Background: Adolescent unintended pregnancies can have detrimental effects on maternal and fetal health, impacting the social lives of young parents. Globally, there is an emphasis on preventing unintended pregnancies in adolescents through comprehensive contraceptive education. This study examined contraception practices and determinants among sexually active Korean adolescents. Methods: This study analyzed raw data from the 2018 and 2021 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. The cohort consisted of 6,042 adolescents who reported sexual experience, categorized into those always practicing contraception and those not. We scrutinized factors related to sexual behavior, such as contraception and sex education, as well as other social and behavioral factors. Results: Among sexually active adolescents, 47.9% of males and 48.1% of females consistently used contraception. The most prevalent contraceptive method was condoms (male 58.1%; female 59.6%). However, a significant portion of adolescents were not using contraception (male 29.4%; female 21.7%). Females who did not consistently use contraception exhibited higher pregnancy rates (2.4% vs. 11.3%). Consistent contraceptive users tended to live with their families and reported less sexual experience after drinking alcohol. Despite a decline in sexual education in schools from 2018 to 2021, the proportion of adolescents consistently using contraception increased. Conclusion To prevent unintended pregnancies among sexually active adolescents, consistent use of appropriate contraceptive methods is crucial.Comprehensive education on contraception should be extended beyond schools to include homes and primary healthcare settings. Policymakers and healthcare providers should consider these consequences when devising strategies to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents.

Background: Adolescent unintended pregnancies can have detrimental effects on maternal and fetal health, impacting the social lives of young parents. Globally, there is an emphasis on preventing unintended pregnancies in adolescents through comprehensive contraceptive education. This study examined contraception practices and determinants among sexually active Korean adolescents. Methods: This study analyzed raw data from the 2018 and 2021 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. The cohort consisted of 6,042 adolescents who reported sexual experience, categorized into those always practicing contraception and those not. We scrutinized factors related to sexual behavior, such as contraception and sex education, as well as other social and behavioral factors. Results: Among sexually active adolescents, 47.9% of males and 48.1% of females consistently used contraception. The most prevalent contraceptive method was condoms (male 58.1%; female 59.6%). However, a significant portion of adolescents were not using contraception (male 29.4%; female 21.7%). Females who did not consistently use contraception exhibited higher pregnancy rates (2.4% vs. 11.3%). Consistent contraceptive users tended to live with their families and reported less sexual experience after drinking alcohol. Despite a decline in sexual education in schools from 2018 to 2021, the proportion of adolescents consistently using contraception increased. Conclusion To prevent unintended pregnancies among sexually active adolescents, consistent use of appropriate contraceptive methods is crucial.Comprehensive education on contraception should be extended beyond schools to include homes and primary healthcare settings. Policymakers and healthcare providers should consider these consequences when devising strategies to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents.

Background: Adolescent unintended pregnancies can have detrimental effects on maternal and fetal health, impacting the social lives of young parents. Globally, there is an emphasis on preventing unintended pregnancies in adolescents through comprehensive contraceptive education. This study examined contraception practices and determinants among sexually active Korean adolescents. Methods: This study analyzed raw data from the 2018 and 2021 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. The cohort consisted of 6,042 adolescents who reported sexual experience, categorized into those always practicing contraception and those not. We scrutinized factors related to sexual behavior, such as contraception and sex education, as well as other social and behavioral factors. Results: Among sexually active adolescents, 47.9% of males and 48.1% of females consistently used contraception. The most prevalent contraceptive method was condoms (male 58.1%; female 59.6%). However, a significant portion of adolescents were not using contraception (male 29.4%; female 21.7%). Females who did not consistently use contraception exhibited higher pregnancy rates (2.4% vs. 11.3%). Consistent contraceptive users tended to live with their families and reported less sexual experience after drinking alcohol. Despite a decline in sexual education in schools from 2018 to 2021, the proportion of adolescents consistently using contraception increased. Conclusion To prevent unintended pregnancies among sexually active adolescents, consistent use of appropriate contraceptive methods is crucial.Comprehensive education on contraception should be extended beyond schools to include homes and primary healthcare settings. Policymakers and healthcare providers should consider these consequences when devising strategies to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.