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.

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.

Purpose: To report the findings of a perception survey on intestinal malrotation conducted by the Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons (KAPS) in 2021. Methods: The perceptions on intestinal malrotation regarding clinical decision making of the KAPS members were collected through web-based survey. Results: A total of 22 surgeons were answered for this study. The results were presented and discussed at the 37th annual meeting of KAPS, which was held in Seoul on June 18, 2021. Conclusion This study provides the clinical decisions of the KAPS members on the intestinal malrotation. The study is expected to be an important reference for improving pediatric surgeons’ understanding and treatment of intestinal malrotation.

Purpose: Biliary atresia (BA) is a rare but progressive cholangiopathy and the leading cause of pediatric liver transplantation worldwide. The Korean Association of Pediatric Surgeons (KAPS) has conducted three national surveys (2001, 2011, and 2023) to assess long-term trends in the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of BA. This study provides a comparative analysis of the 2nd and 3rd national surveys, with reference to selected findings from the 1st survey. Methods: This study included 453 patients from the 3rd national survey (2011–2021) and 435 patients from the 2nd survey (2001–2010), all of whom underwent Kasai portoenterostomy. Data were collected via electronic case report forms from pediatric surgical centers nationwide. Comparisons were made regarding demographics, clinical features, diagnostic patterns, operative details, follow-up outcomes, and survival. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to evaluate long-term survival. Results: The mean number of BA patients per year remained stable between surveys (43.5 in the 2nd, 41.18 in the 3rd), though centralization of care increased, with 61.5% of cases managed by two major institutions in the 3rd survey. The median age at surgery decreased, and the use of preoperative imaging (especially magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) increased. The 10-year native liver survival rate declined from 59.8% to 53.7%, while overall 10-year survival improved slightly (92.9% to 93.2%). Postoperative complications, such as cholangitis and liver failure, persisted but were better categorized. The 3rd survey also reported improved mortality (4.9%) and reduced follow-up loss (11.5%) compared to the 2nd survey. Conclusion While overall survival after Kasai operation has remained high and even improved, native liver survival has slightly declined. The findings reflect earlier diagnosis, more consistent diagnostic imaging, and increasing centralization of care. These trends underscore the importance of long-term nationwide data collection in guiding future strategies for BA management in Korea.

Purpose: Diffuse sclerosing variant papillary thyroid carcinoma (DSV-PTC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of PTC.Preoperative diagnosis is challenging owing to the overlapping of imaging characteristics with those of other thyroid conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of preoperative ultrasound (US) in predicting DSV-PTC and to identify significant diagnostic factors. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 34 patients who were preoperatively suspected of having DSV-PTC based on US findings and later underwent thyroidectomy. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the final histopathological diagnosis: DSV-PTC and non-DSV-PTC. Demographic, radiological, and pathological characteristics were also compared. Results: Only 32.4% of patients initially suspected of having DSV-PTC were confirmed postoperatively. Among the US features, the Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (K-TIRADS) score 5 was significantly associated with DSV-PTC (P = 0.038), whereas other radiological factors, including echogenicity and microcalcifications, were not. The histopathological features, such as tumor size, BRAF and TERT mutations, vascular invasion, and lymph node metastasis, showed no significant differences between the groups. Conclusion Preoperative US has limited accuracy (32.4%) in diagnosing DSV-PTC. Because of the aggressive treatment recommendations based on preoperative suspicion, clinicians should carefully consider the limitations of imaging. Further studies incorporating fine-needle aspiration or core needle biopsy are required to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Living kidney donors with hypertension are potential candidates for solving the donor shortages in renal transplantation. However, the safety of donors with hypertension after nephrectomy has not been sufficiently confirmed. Methods: A total of 642 hypertensive and 4,848 normotensive living kidney donors who were enrolled in the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry between May 2014 and December 2020 were included in this study. The study endpoints were a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria. Results: In the entire cohort, donors with hypertension had a lower eGFR before nephrectomy in comparison to normotensive donors which remained lower after kidney transplantation. The incidence of proteinuria in hypertensive donors increased during follow-up. In propensity score-matched analysis, the risk of eGFR being <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–1.19) or <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.06–4.03) was not significantly increased in donors with hypertension. However, hypertensive donors were found to have a significantly higher risk of proteinuria than normotensive donors (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.05–4.94). Similar findings were also observed in the analysis of the entire cohort, indicating that hypertensive donors had a significantly higher risk of proteinuria (adjusted HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.10–2.85), without a substantial increase in the risk of decreased renal function. Conclusion: The risk of proteinuria after donation was substantially increased in donors with hypertension. These findings underscore the need for careful monitoring of proteinuria in hypertensive donors following donation.