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: Recently, deep learning techniques have been introduced for age estimation, with automated methods based on radiographic analysis demonstrating high accuracy. In this study, we applied convolutional neural network (CNN) techniques to the lower dentition area on orthopantomograms (OPGs) of children to develop an automated age estimation model and evaluate its accuracy for use in forensic dentistry. Methods: In this study, OPGs of 2,856 subjects aged 3-14 years were analyzed. The You Only Look Once (YOLO) V8 object detection technique was applied to extract the mandibular dentition area on OPGs, designating it as the region of interest (ROI). First, 200 radiographs were randomly selected, and were used to train a model for extracting the ROI. The trained model was then applied to the entire dataset. For the CNN image classification task, 80% of OPGs were allocated to the training set, while the remaining 20% were used as the test set. A transfer learning approach was employed using the ResNet50 and VGG19 backbone models, with an ensemble technique combining these models to improve performance. The mean absolute error (MAE) on the test set was used as the validation metric, and the model with the lowest MAE was selected. Results: In this study, the age estimation model developed using mandibular dentition region from OPGs achieved MAE and root mean squared error (RMSE) values of 0.501 and 0.742, respectively, on the test set, and MAE and RMSE values of 0.273 and 0.354, respectively, on the training set. Conclusions The automated age estimation model developed in this study demonstrated accuracy comparable to that of previous research and shows potential for applications in forensic investigations. Increasing the sample size and incorporating diverse deep learning techniques are expected to further enhance the accuracy of future age estimation models.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Purpose: Silent pheochromocytoma refers to tumors without signs and symptoms of catecholamine excess. This study aimed to clarify the clinical, radiological characteristics, and perioperative features of silent pheochromocytomas diagnosed after adrenalectomy for adrenal incidentaloma. Methods: Medical records of patients who underwent adrenalectomy for adrenal incidentaloma and were subsequently diagnosed with silent pheochromocytoma between January 2000 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for demographic, diagnostic, surgical, and pathological findings. Results: Of the 130 patients who underwent adrenalectomy for incidentaloma, 8 (6.1%) were diagnosed with silent pheochromocytoma. Almost all patients had no hypertensive symptoms and their baseline hormonal levels remained within normal ranges. All patients exhibited tumor size >4 cm, precontrast Hounsfield unit >10, and absolute washout <60%. Intraoperative hypertensive events were noted in 2 patients (25.0%) in whom antiadrenergic medications were not administered. All patients in the intraoperative hypertensive event group exhibited atypical features on CT, whereas 83.3% of patients in the non-intraoperative hypertensive event group showed atypical features on CT imaging. Conclusion Silent pheochromocytomas share radiological traits with malignant adrenal tumors. Suspicious features on CT scans warrant surgical consideration for appropriate treatment. Administering alpha-blockers can enhance hemodynamic stability during adrenalectomy in suspected silent pheochromocytoma cases.

Purpose: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare primary carcinoma originating in the adrenal gland with a poor prognosis and a high recurrence rate. This study evaluated the risk factors associated with recurrence in patients with early stage ACC after curative surgical resection. Methods: The present study retrospectively evaluated the risk factors for recurrence in 38 patients with stages 1 and 2 ACC who underwent curative resection between 1995 and 2020. Results: Recurrence was observed in 21 patients (55.3%), with no significant difference between stages 1 and 2 ACC (P = 0.640). The overall recurrence rate was higher in patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery than open adrenalectomy (71.4% vs. 51.6%). Of the 33 patients with gross tumor margins negative for malignancy, 16 (48.5%) experienced tumor recurrence, and all 5 patients with positive and unknown gross resection margins had recurrence.Recurrences were observed in 14 of the 30 patients (46.7%) negative for pathologic resection margins, 6 of the 7 patients (85.7%) with pathologically indeterminate margins, and 1 patient with pathologically positive margins. Conclusion The recurrence rates are high even in patients with early stage ACC, being higher in patients who undergo minimally invasive surgery than open adrenalectomy. Obtaining clear resection margins during surgery may reduce tumor recurrence; however, gross or pathologic margin safety was not a secure factor in preventing recurrence. None of the factors analyzed was a definitive predictor of poor prognosis.

Purpose: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new bone lesions are sometimes not properly categorized through a confirmatory bone scan, and clinical significance of the test itself remains unclear. This study aimed to demonstrate the performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting and their prognostic impact in enzalutamide-treated mCRPC. Materials and Methods: Patients who received oral enzalutamide for mCRPC during 2014-2017 at 14 tertiary centers in Korea were included. Patients lacking imaging assessment data or insufficient drug exposure were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed. Results: Overall, 520 patients with mCRPC were enrolled (240 [26.2%] chemotherapy-naïve and 280 [53.2%] after chemotherapy). Among 352 responders, 92 patients (26.1%) showed new bone lesions in their early bone scan. Confirmatory bone scan was performed in 41 patients (44.6%), and it was associated with prolonged OS in the entire population (median, 30.9 vs. 19.7 months; p < 0.001), as well as in the chemotherapy-naïve (median, 47.2 vs. 20.5 months; p=0.011) and post-chemotherapy sub-groups (median, 25.5 vs. 18.0 months; p=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression showed that confirmatory bone scan performance was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.69; p=0.002). Conclusion Confirmatory bone scan performance was associated with prolonged OS. Thus, the premature discontinuation of enzalutamide without confirmatory bone scans should be discouraged.

Objective: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the prevalence of chronic endometritis, diagnosed using CD138 immunohistochemistry, among infertile women and to assess the association between chronic endometritis and recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Methods: In total, 266 patients who underwent hysteroscopy due to infertility between 2019 and 2020 were included in the analysis. Of these, 136 patients with RIF and 130 non-RIF patients were included in the study. CD138 immunohistochemistry test results, blood biomarkers (including natural killer cells, white blood cells, and the lymphocyte-to-neutrophil ratio), and data on pregnancy outcomes were obtained. If the CD138 test yielded a positive result, the patients received antibiotic treatment. Results: The overall proportion of CD138-positive patients was 32.7% (87/266). The CD138 positivity rate was not related to the number of cycles with implantation failure. In the RIF patient group, no significant associations were found between CD138 positivity and peripheral blood markers. The clinical pregnancy rates were similar between infertile women treated with antibiotics for chronic endometritis and those without chronic endometritis. Conclusion To improve the pregnancy rate in infertile patients, it may be helpful to combine CD138 testing with other laboratory tests and administer antibiotic treatment if the result is positive.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.