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.

Recent clinical outcomes of multi-regimen chemotherapy in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCC) have shown benefits in terms of overall survival. However, repeated endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and serious adverse events negatively affect prolongation of the survival period.The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of massive hemobilia and the outcomes of its management with fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FC-SEMSs) in patients with hilum-involving CCC receiving multi-regimen chemotherapy. The methods and effects of FCSEMS placement were retrospectively investigated following the occurrence of massive hemobilia during EBD. A total of 356 patients with CCC received multi-regimen chemotherapy. Among them, 181 patients had hilar invasion, and seven patients (3.9%) developed massive hemobilia during repeated EBD using removable stents. In all cases, the tumor encased the right hepatic artery. In six patients (85.7%), hemostasis was immediately and completely achieved by inserting one or two FC-SEMSs proximal to the hilar invasion area. Therefore, if the tumor encases the right hepatic artery, massive hemobilia is likely to occur during multi-regimen chemotherapy.Thus, prompt placement of a FC-SEMS would be an effective treatment option for massive hemobilia in patients with hilum-involving CCC.

Recent clinical outcomes of multi-regimen chemotherapy in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCC) have shown benefits in terms of overall survival. However, repeated endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and serious adverse events negatively affect prolongation of the survival period.The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of massive hemobilia and the outcomes of its management with fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FC-SEMSs) in patients with hilum-involving CCC receiving multi-regimen chemotherapy. The methods and effects of FCSEMS placement were retrospectively investigated following the occurrence of massive hemobilia during EBD. A total of 356 patients with CCC received multi-regimen chemotherapy. Among them, 181 patients had hilar invasion, and seven patients (3.9%) developed massive hemobilia during repeated EBD using removable stents. In all cases, the tumor encased the right hepatic artery. In six patients (85.7%), hemostasis was immediately and completely achieved by inserting one or two FC-SEMSs proximal to the hilar invasion area. Therefore, if the tumor encases the right hepatic artery, massive hemobilia is likely to occur during multi-regimen chemotherapy.Thus, prompt placement of a FC-SEMS would be an effective treatment option for massive hemobilia in patients with hilum-involving CCC.

Recent clinical outcomes of multi-regimen chemotherapy in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCC) have shown benefits in terms of overall survival. However, repeated endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and serious adverse events negatively affect prolongation of the survival period.The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of massive hemobilia and the outcomes of its management with fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FC-SEMSs) in patients with hilum-involving CCC receiving multi-regimen chemotherapy. The methods and effects of FCSEMS placement were retrospectively investigated following the occurrence of massive hemobilia during EBD. A total of 356 patients with CCC received multi-regimen chemotherapy. Among them, 181 patients had hilar invasion, and seven patients (3.9%) developed massive hemobilia during repeated EBD using removable stents. In all cases, the tumor encased the right hepatic artery. In six patients (85.7%), hemostasis was immediately and completely achieved by inserting one or two FC-SEMSs proximal to the hilar invasion area. Therefore, if the tumor encases the right hepatic artery, massive hemobilia is likely to occur during multi-regimen chemotherapy.Thus, prompt placement of a FC-SEMS would be an effective treatment option for massive hemobilia in patients with hilum-involving CCC.

Recent clinical outcomes of multi-regimen chemotherapy in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCC) have shown benefits in terms of overall survival. However, repeated endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and serious adverse events negatively affect prolongation of the survival period.The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of massive hemobilia and the outcomes of its management with fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FC-SEMSs) in patients with hilum-involving CCC receiving multi-regimen chemotherapy. The methods and effects of FCSEMS placement were retrospectively investigated following the occurrence of massive hemobilia during EBD. A total of 356 patients with CCC received multi-regimen chemotherapy. Among them, 181 patients had hilar invasion, and seven patients (3.9%) developed massive hemobilia during repeated EBD using removable stents. In all cases, the tumor encased the right hepatic artery. In six patients (85.7%), hemostasis was immediately and completely achieved by inserting one or two FC-SEMSs proximal to the hilar invasion area. Therefore, if the tumor encases the right hepatic artery, massive hemobilia is likely to occur during multi-regimen chemotherapy.Thus, prompt placement of a FC-SEMS would be an effective treatment option for massive hemobilia in patients with hilum-involving CCC.

Purpose: Delirium is a common neurocognitive disorder in patients with advanced cancer and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. As a potentially reversible phenomenon, early recognition of delirium by identifying the risk factors demands attention. We aimed to develop a model to predict the occurrence of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included patients with advanced cancer admitted to the oncology ward of four tertiary cancer centers in Korea for supportive cares and excluded those discharged due to death. The primary endpoint was occurrence of delirium. Sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and concomitant medication were investigated for associating variables. The predictive model developed using multivariate logistic regression was internally validated by bootstrapping. Results: From January 2019 to December 2020, 2,152 patients were enrolled. The median age of patients was 64 years, and 58.4% were male. A total of 127 patients (5.9%) developed delirium during hospitalization. In multivariate logistic regression, age, body mass index, hearing impairment, previous delirium history, length of hospitalization, chemotherapy during hospitalization, blood urea nitrogen and calcium levels, and concomitant antidepressant use were significantly associated with the occurrence of delirium. The predictive model combining all four categorized variables showed the best performance among the developed models (area under the curve 0.831, sensitivity 80.3%, and specificity 72.0%). The calibration plot showed optimal agreement between predicted and actual probabilities through internal validation of the final model. Conclusion We proposed a successful predictive model for the risk of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

Purpose: Since 2020, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Ate/Bev) has been the standard first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but long-term treatment studies are limited. This study evaluated the clinical characteristics and effects of Ate/Bev for over 1 year. Materials and Methods: This study included patients with unresectable HCC treated with first-line Ate/Bev between May 2020 and April 2022. Those receiving Ate/Bev for 1 year or more were classified as the long-term treatment group. Results: Of 246 patients, 69 (28.0%) were in the long-term treatment group, which comprised more proportions of intrahepatic tumor burden < 25%, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0, and a lower proportion of portal vein tumor thrombosis than the short-term treatment group. The long-term treatment group had a higher incidence of atezolizumab-related thyroid dysfunction (31.9% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001; median time to onset [mTTO], 2.8 months), dermatologic toxicity (29.0% vs. 14.7%, p=0.017; mTTO, 3.3 months), bevacizumab-related hypertension (44.9% vs. 22.0%, p=0.001; mTTO, 4.2 months), and proteinuria (69.6% vs. 38.4%, p < 0.001; mTTO, 6.8 months), compared to the short-term treatment group. Regarding liver function in the long-term treatment group, patients initially classified as Child-Pugh class A decreased from 87.0% to 75.4%, and albumin-bilirubin grade 1 decreased from 68.1% to 50.7% after 1 year of treatment. Conclusion The Ate/Bev long-term treatment group had a lower intrahepatic tumor burden, less portal vein tumor thrombosis, and better performance status and liver function at baseline. Atezolizumab-related immunological adverse events emerged relatively early in treatment compared to the bevacizumab-related. Additionally, some patients demonstrated liver function deterioration during long-term Ate/Bev treatment.

Background/Aims: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE+BEV) therapy has become the recommended first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because of favorable treatment responses. However, there is a lack of data on sequential regimens after ATE+BEV treatment failure. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received subsequent systemic therapy for disease progression after ATE+BEV. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included patients who started second-line systemic treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib after HCC progressed on ATE+BEV between August 2019 and December 2022. Treatment response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1.). Clinical features of the two groups were balanced through propensity score (PS) matching. Results: This study enrolled 126 patients, 40 (31.7%) in the lenvatinib group, and 86 (68.3%) in the sorafenib group. The median age was 63 years, and males were predominant (88.1%). In PS-matched cohorts (36 patients in each group), the objective response rate was similar between the lenvatinib- and sorafenib-treated groups (5.6% vs. 8.3%; P=0.643), but the disease control rate was superior in the lenvatinib group (66.7% vs. 22.2%; P<0.001). Despite the superior progression- free survival (PFS) in the lenvatinib group (3.5 vs. 1.8 months, P=0.001), the overall survival (OS, 10.3 vs. 7.5 months, P=0.353) did not differ between the two PS-matched treatment groups. Conclusions In second-line therapy for unresectable HCC after ATE+BEV failure, lenvatinib showed better PFS and comparable OS to sorafenib in a real-world setting. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to optimize second-line treatment.