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.

Objective: To identify the prevalence and factors associated with T-score discordance between the spine and hip, as well as between the paretic and non-paretic hips in hemiplegic stroke patients, this study investigated bone mineral density (BMD) patterns. Bone loss predominantly affects the paretic hip after a stroke, and typical clinical assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that scan the lumbar spine (LS) and a single hip may overlook an osteoporosis diagnosis. This oversight could potentially lead to suboptimal treatment for stroke patients. Methods: This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 540 patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation between October 2014 and February 2022, who underwent DXA of LS and bilateral hips. Results: The prevalence rates of concordance, low LS discordance, and low hip discordance between the LS and hips were 48.2%, 12.2%, and 39.6%, respectively. The discordance rate between bilateral hips was 17.0%. The paretic side had significantly lower total hip T-scores than the non-paretic side (p<0.001). Notably low paretic hip discordance was more prevalent during the chronic phase. DXA scans of the LS and both hips revealed a 0.7%–0.9% higher major discordance compared to LS and single hip DXA scans. The multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between a low paretic hip discordance and cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratio 0.071, 95% confidence interval 0.931–1.003, p<0.05). Conclusion Since stroke survivors are at high risk for hip fractures, comprehensive BMD assessments, which include LS and bilateral hips, should be considered for post-stroke osteoporosis care to enhance diagnostic accuracy and timely treatment.

Objective: To identify the prevalence and factors associated with T-score discordance between the spine and hip, as well as between the paretic and non-paretic hips in hemiplegic stroke patients, this study investigated bone mineral density (BMD) patterns. Bone loss predominantly affects the paretic hip after a stroke, and typical clinical assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that scan the lumbar spine (LS) and a single hip may overlook an osteoporosis diagnosis. This oversight could potentially lead to suboptimal treatment for stroke patients. Methods: This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 540 patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation between October 2014 and February 2022, who underwent DXA of LS and bilateral hips. Results: The prevalence rates of concordance, low LS discordance, and low hip discordance between the LS and hips were 48.2%, 12.2%, and 39.6%, respectively. The discordance rate between bilateral hips was 17.0%. The paretic side had significantly lower total hip T-scores than the non-paretic side (p<0.001). Notably low paretic hip discordance was more prevalent during the chronic phase. DXA scans of the LS and both hips revealed a 0.7%–0.9% higher major discordance compared to LS and single hip DXA scans. The multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between a low paretic hip discordance and cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratio 0.071, 95% confidence interval 0.931–1.003, p<0.05). Conclusion Since stroke survivors are at high risk for hip fractures, comprehensive BMD assessments, which include LS and bilateral hips, should be considered for post-stroke osteoporosis care to enhance diagnostic accuracy and timely treatment.

Objective: To identify the prevalence and factors associated with T-score discordance between the spine and hip, as well as between the paretic and non-paretic hips in hemiplegic stroke patients, this study investigated bone mineral density (BMD) patterns. Bone loss predominantly affects the paretic hip after a stroke, and typical clinical assessments using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) that scan the lumbar spine (LS) and a single hip may overlook an osteoporosis diagnosis. This oversight could potentially lead to suboptimal treatment for stroke patients. Methods: This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 540 patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation between October 2014 and February 2022, who underwent DXA of LS and bilateral hips. Results: The prevalence rates of concordance, low LS discordance, and low hip discordance between the LS and hips were 48.2%, 12.2%, and 39.6%, respectively. The discordance rate between bilateral hips was 17.0%. The paretic side had significantly lower total hip T-scores than the non-paretic side (p<0.001). Notably low paretic hip discordance was more prevalent during the chronic phase. DXA scans of the LS and both hips revealed a 0.7%–0.9% higher major discordance compared to LS and single hip DXA scans. The multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between a low paretic hip discordance and cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratio 0.071, 95% confidence interval 0.931–1.003, p<0.05). Conclusion Since stroke survivors are at high risk for hip fractures, comprehensive BMD assessments, which include LS and bilateral hips, should be considered for post-stroke osteoporosis care to enhance diagnostic accuracy and timely treatment.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Objectives: . This study was conducted to evaluate the user satisfaction, efficacy, and safety of round window (RW) vibroplasty using the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) in patients with persistent mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy. Methods: . The study included 27 patients (mean age, 58.7 years; age range, 28–76 years; 11 men and 16 women) with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy from 15 tertiary referral centers in Korea. The VSB was implanted at the RW. The Korean translation of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire and the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction as the primary outcome. The secondary outcome measures were audiological test results and complication rates. Results: . The mean scores for ease of communication (61.3% to 29.7% to 30.2%), reverberation (62.1% to 43.1% to 37.4%), and background noise (63.3% to 37.7% to 34.3%) subscales of the APHAB questionnaire significantly decreased after VSB surgery. The mean K-IOI-HA scores at 3 and 6 months after surgery were significantly higher than the mean preoperative score (18.6 to 27.2 to 28.1). The postoperative VSB-aided thresholds were significantly lower than the preoperative unaided and hearing aid (HA)-aided thresholds. There was no significant difference between preoperative unaided, preoperative HA-aided, and postoperative VSB-aided maximum phonetically balanced word-recognition scores. None of the 27 patients experienced a change in postoperative bone conduction pure tone average. One patient developed temporary facial palsy and two developed surgical wound infections. Conclusion . RW vibroplasty resulted in improved satisfaction and audiological test results in patients with mixed hearing loss after mastoidectomy, and the complication rate was tolerable.

Concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines against the rapidly spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are increasing. This study aimed to assess neutralizing antibody activity against the wild-type (BetaCoV/Korea/ KCDC03/2020), delta, and omicron variants after full primary and booster vaccinations with BNT162b2. A plaque reduction neutralization test was employed to determine 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) titers in serum samples. ND 50 titers against the omicron variant (median [interquartile range], 5.3 [< 5.0–12.7]) after full primary vaccination were lower than those against the wild-type (144.8 [44.7–294.0]) and delta (24.3 [14.3–81.1]) variants.Furthermore, 19/30 participants (63.3%) displayed lower ND 50 titers than the detection threshold (< 10.0) against omicron after full primary vaccination. However, the booster vaccine significantly increased ND 50 titers against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020, delta, and omicron, although titers against omicron remained lower than those against the other variants (P < 0.001). Our study suggests that booster vaccination with BNT162b2 significantly increases humoral immunity against the omicron variant.