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: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed. Objective: This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based recommendations. Methods: The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved. Results: This guideline provides treatment guidance on advanced systemic treatment modalities for AD. In particular, the guideline offers up-to-date treatment recommendations for biologics and Janus-kinase inhibitors used in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD.It also provides guidance on other therapies for AD, along with tailored recommendations for children, adolescents, the elderly, and pregnant or breastfeeding women. Conclusion KADA’s updated AD treatment guidelines incorporate the latest evidence and expert opinion to provide a comprehensive approach to AD treatment. The guidelines will help clinicians optimize patient-specific therapies.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed. Objective: This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based practices. Methods: The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved. Results: The guidelines provide detailed recommendations on foundational therapies, including the use of moisturizers, cleansing and bathing practices, allergen avoidance, and patient education. Guidance on topical therapies, such as topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, is also provided to help manage inflammation and maintain skin barrier function in patients with AD. Additionally, recommendations on conventional systemic therapies, including corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate, are provided for managing moderate to severe AD. Conclusion KADA’s updated AD guidelines offer clinicians evidence-based strategies focused on basic therapies, topical therapies, and conventional systemic therapies, equipping them to enhance quality of care and improve patient outcomes in AD management.

Background: In 2006, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group released the diagnostic criteria for Korean atopic dermatitis (AD). Recently, more simplified, and practical AD diagnostic criteria have been proposed. Objective: Based on updated criteria and experience, we studied to develop and share a consensus on diagnostic criteria for AD in Koreans. Materials and Methods: For the diagnostic criteria, a questionnaire was constructed by searching the English-language literature in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A modified Delphi method composed of 3 rounds of email questionnaires was adopted for the consensus process. Fifty-four KADA council members participated in the 3 rounds of votes and expert consensus recommendations were established. Results: Diagnostic criteria for AD include pruritus, eczema with age-specific pattern, and chronic or relapsing history. Diagnostic aids for AD encompass xerosis, immunoglobulin E reactivity, hand–foot eczema, periorbital changes, periauricular changes, perioral changes, nipple eczema, perifollicular accentuation, and personal or family history of atopy. Conclusion This study streamlined and updated the diagnostic criteria for AD in Korea, making them more practicable for use in real-world clinical field.

Background: The Jr a antigen is a high-prevalence red blood cell (RBC) antigen. Reports on cases of fatal hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn and acute hemolytic transfusion reactions suggest that antibodies against Jr a (anti-Jra ) have potential clinical significance.Identifying anti-Jra is challenging owing to a lack of commercially available antisera. We developed an alternative approach to rapidly predict the presence of anti-Jra using the TaqMan single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-genotyping method. Methods: Residual peripheral blood samples from 10 patients suspected of having the anti-Jr a were collected. Two samples with confirmed Jr(a–) RBCs and anti-Jra were used to validate the TaqMan genotyping assay by comparing the genotyping results with direct sequencing. The accuracy of the assay in predicting the presence of anti-Jra was verified through crossmatching with in-house Jr(a–) O+ RBCs. Results: The TaqMan-genotyping method was validated with two Jr(a–) RBC- and anti-Jra -confirmed samples that showed concordant Jr a genotyping and direct sequencing results.Jra genotyping for the remaining samples and crossmatching the serum samples with inhouse Jr(a–) O+ RBCs showed consistent results. Conclusions We validated a rapid, simple, accurate, and cost-effective method for predicting the presence of anti-Jra using a TaqMan-based SNP-genotyping assay. Implementing this method in routine practice in clinical laboratories will assist in solving difficult problems regarding alloantibodies to high-prevalence RBC antigens and ultimately aid in providing safe and timely transfusions and proper patient care.

Background: The Jr a antigen is a high-prevalence red blood cell (RBC) antigen. Reports on cases of fatal hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn and acute hemolytic transfusion reactions suggest that antibodies against Jr a (anti-Jra ) have potential clinical significance.Identifying anti-Jra is challenging owing to a lack of commercially available antisera. We developed an alternative approach to rapidly predict the presence of anti-Jra using the TaqMan single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-genotyping method. Methods: Residual peripheral blood samples from 10 patients suspected of having the anti-Jr a were collected. Two samples with confirmed Jr(a–) RBCs and anti-Jra were used to validate the TaqMan genotyping assay by comparing the genotyping results with direct sequencing. The accuracy of the assay in predicting the presence of anti-Jra was verified through crossmatching with in-house Jr(a–) O+ RBCs. Results: The TaqMan-genotyping method was validated with two Jr(a–) RBC- and anti-Jra -confirmed samples that showed concordant Jr a genotyping and direct sequencing results.Jra genotyping for the remaining samples and crossmatching the serum samples with inhouse Jr(a–) O+ RBCs showed consistent results. Conclusions We validated a rapid, simple, accurate, and cost-effective method for predicting the presence of anti-Jra using a TaqMan-based SNP-genotyping assay. Implementing this method in routine practice in clinical laboratories will assist in solving difficult problems regarding alloantibodies to high-prevalence RBC antigens and ultimately aid in providing safe and timely transfusions and proper patient care.

Background: The Jr a antigen is a high-prevalence red blood cell (RBC) antigen. Reports on cases of fatal hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn and acute hemolytic transfusion reactions suggest that antibodies against Jr a (anti-Jra ) have potential clinical significance.Identifying anti-Jra is challenging owing to a lack of commercially available antisera. We developed an alternative approach to rapidly predict the presence of anti-Jra using the TaqMan single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-genotyping method. Methods: Residual peripheral blood samples from 10 patients suspected of having the anti-Jr a were collected. Two samples with confirmed Jr(a–) RBCs and anti-Jra were used to validate the TaqMan genotyping assay by comparing the genotyping results with direct sequencing. The accuracy of the assay in predicting the presence of anti-Jra was verified through crossmatching with in-house Jr(a–) O+ RBCs. Results: The TaqMan-genotyping method was validated with two Jr(a–) RBC- and anti-Jra -confirmed samples that showed concordant Jr a genotyping and direct sequencing results.Jra genotyping for the remaining samples and crossmatching the serum samples with inhouse Jr(a–) O+ RBCs showed consistent results. Conclusions We validated a rapid, simple, accurate, and cost-effective method for predicting the presence of anti-Jra using a TaqMan-based SNP-genotyping assay. Implementing this method in routine practice in clinical laboratories will assist in solving difficult problems regarding alloantibodies to high-prevalence RBC antigens and ultimately aid in providing safe and timely transfusions and proper patient care.

Background: The Jr a antigen is a high-prevalence red blood cell (RBC) antigen. Reports on cases of fatal hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn and acute hemolytic transfusion reactions suggest that antibodies against Jr a (anti-Jra ) have potential clinical significance.Identifying anti-Jra is challenging owing to a lack of commercially available antisera. We developed an alternative approach to rapidly predict the presence of anti-Jra using the TaqMan single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-genotyping method. Methods: Residual peripheral blood samples from 10 patients suspected of having the anti-Jr a were collected. Two samples with confirmed Jr(a–) RBCs and anti-Jra were used to validate the TaqMan genotyping assay by comparing the genotyping results with direct sequencing. The accuracy of the assay in predicting the presence of anti-Jra was verified through crossmatching with in-house Jr(a–) O+ RBCs. Results: The TaqMan-genotyping method was validated with two Jr(a–) RBC- and anti-Jra -confirmed samples that showed concordant Jr a genotyping and direct sequencing results.Jra genotyping for the remaining samples and crossmatching the serum samples with inhouse Jr(a–) O+ RBCs showed consistent results. Conclusions We validated a rapid, simple, accurate, and cost-effective method for predicting the presence of anti-Jra using a TaqMan-based SNP-genotyping assay. Implementing this method in routine practice in clinical laboratories will assist in solving difficult problems regarding alloantibodies to high-prevalence RBC antigens and ultimately aid in providing safe and timely transfusions and proper patient care.