Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

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: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

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: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Purpose: Risk factors predicting distant metastasis (DM) in extrahepatic bile duct cancer (EHBDC) patients treated with curative resection were investigated. Materials and Methods: Medical records of 1,418 EHBDC patients undergoing curative resection between Jan 2000 and Dec 2015 from 14 institutions were reviewed. After resection, 924 patients (67.6%) were surveilled without adjuvant therapy, 297 (21.7%) were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and 148 (10.8%) with CCRT followed by chemotherapy. To exclude the treatment effect from innate confounders, patients not treated with adjuvant therapy were evaluated. Results: After a median follow-up of 36.7 months (range, 2.7 to 213.2 months), the 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rate was 57.7%. On multivariate analysis, perihilar or diffuse tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 1.391; p=0.004), poorly differentiated histology (HR, 2.014; p < 0.001), presence of perineural invasion (HR, 1.768; p < 0.001), positive nodal metastasis (HR, 2.670; p < 0.001) and preoperative carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 ≥ 37 U/mL (HR, 1.353; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with inferior DMFS. The DMFS rates significantly differed according to the number of these risk factors. For validation, patients who underwent adjuvant therapy were evaluated. In patients with ≥ 3 factors, additional chemotherapy after CCRT resulted in a superior DMFS compared with CCRT alone (5-year rate, 47.6% vs. 27.7%; p=0.001), but the benefit of additional chemotherapy was not observed in patients with 0-2 risk factors. Conclusion Tumor location, histologic differentiation, perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis, and preoperative CA 19-9 level predicted DM risk in resected EHBDC. These risk factors might help identifying a subset of patients who could benefit from additional chemotherapy after resection.