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.

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: This study aimed to investigate the optimal withdrawal time (WT) for initial surveillance colonoscopy after curative resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) by comparing anterior/low anterior resection (AR/LAR) and right hemicolectomy (RHC) groups. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 1,212 patients who underwent initial surveillance colonoscopy after CRC resection between 2015 and 2022. The patients were divided into the AR/LAR (n = 846) and RHC (n = 366) groups. The optimal WT was determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and validated using logistic regression models. The adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates (ADR/ANDR) were evaluated based on the optimal WT. Results: The optimal WT was 7 and 6 minutes in the AR/LAR and RHC groups, respectively. In multivariate analysis, WT ≥7 and ≥6 minutes in the AR/LAR (odds ratio [OR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75–3.24; P < 0.001) and RHC (OR, 2.64;95% CI, 1.59–4.39; P = 0.001) groups, respectively, were significant factors for adenoma detection. In the AR/LAR group, ADR was 41.5% for WT ≥7 minutes compared to 21.9% for WT <7 minutes (P < 0.001). In the RHC group, ADR for WT ≥6 minutes was 33.9% compared to 15.8% for WT <6 minutes (P < 0.001). The ANDR also significantly improved with longer WTs in both groups. Conclusion This study suggests that a minimum WT of 7 and 6 minutes for AR/LAR and RHC patients, respectively, during the initial surveillance colonoscopy after CRC resection is optimal for maintaining a satisfactory ADR and ANDR. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring colonoscopic procedures according to the type of surgical resection.

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (RNETs) under 10 mm. Incomplete resections necessitate salvage procedures, highlighting the need for complete R0 resection. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of wide hot snare polypectomy (WHSP) compared to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the salvage treatment of small RNETs. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at Korea University Guro Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022. It compared the outcomes of salvage resections for RNETs ≤10 mm using 2 approaches: ESD and EMR vs. WHSP. Demographics, tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were compared. Efficacy was evaluated by the histological complete resection rate and procedure time, while safety was assessed by the incidence of complications. Results: Out of 135 patients undergoing salvage resection for RNET, 14 who underwent transanal excision were excluded. Of the remaining 121, 99 underwent EMR or ESD, and 22 underwent WHSP. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The WHSP group demonstrated a significantly higher R0 resection rate (72.7% vs. 49.5%, P = 0.010) and a shorter median procedure time (3.5 minutes vs. 8.3 minutes). No complications were reported in the WHSP group. Conclusion WHSP is a rapid, straightforward, safe, and effective approach for the salvage treatment of RNETs less than 10 mm in diameter, particularly in patients without additional risk factors.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the unexplored relationship between BDNF methylation, long-term outcomes, and its interaction with suicidal ideation (SI), which is closely associated with both BDNF expression and stroke outcomes. Methods: A total of 278 stroke patients were assessed for BDNF methylation status and SI using suicide-related item in the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale at 2 weeks post-stroke. We investigated the incidence of composite cerebro-cardiovascular events (CCVEs) during an 8−14-year period after the initial stroke as long-term stroke outcome.We conducted Cox regression models adjusted for covariates to evaluate the association between BDNF methylation status and CCVEs, as well as its interaction with post-stroke SI at 2 weeks. Results: Higher methylation status of CpG 1, 3, and 5, but not the average value, predicted a greater number of composite CCVEs during 8−14 years following the stroke. The associations between a higher methylation status of CpGs 1, 3, 5, and 8, as well as the average BDNF methylation value, and a greater number of composite CCVEs, were prominent in patients who had post-stroke SI at 2 weeks. Notably, a significant interaction between methylation status and SI on composite CCVEs was observed only for CpG 8. Conclusion The significant association between BDNF methylation and poor long-term stroke outcomes, particularly amplified in individuals who had post-stroke SI at 2 weeks, suggested that evaluating the biological marker status of BDNF methylation along with assessing SI during the acute phase of stroke can help predict long-term outcomes.

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.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) were more susceptible to poor outcomes owing to respiratory muscle weakness and immunotherapy. Several studies conducted in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic reported higher mortality in patients with MG compared to the general population. This study aimed to investigate the clinical course and prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with MG and to compare these parameters between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in South Korea. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study, which was conducted at 14 tertiary hospitals in South Korea, reviewed the medical records and identified MG patients who contracted COVID-19 between February 2022 and April 2022. The demographic and clinical characteristics associated with MG and vaccination status were collected. The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection and MG were investigated and compared between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: Ninety-two patients with MG contracted COVID-19 during the study. Nine (9.8%) patients required hospitalization, 4 (4.3%) of whom were admitted to the intensive care unit. Seventy-five of 92 patients were vaccinated before contracting COVID-19 infection, and 17 were not. During the COVID-19 infection, 6 of 17 (35.3%) unvaccinated patients were hospitalized, whereas 3 of 75 (4.0%) vaccinated patients were hospitalized (P < 0.001). The frequencies of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.019 and P = 0.032, respectively). The rate of MG deterioration was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.041). Logistic regression after weighting revealed that the risk of hospitalization and MG deterioration after COVID-19 infection was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients. Conclusion This study suggests that the clinical course and prognosis of patients with MG who contracted COVID-19 during the dominance of the omicron variant of COVID-19 may be milder than those at the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic when vaccination was unavailable. Vaccination may reduce the morbidity of COVID-19 in patients with MG and effectively prevent MG deterioration induced by COVID-19 infection.

The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Clinical Immunology task force report aims to provide new protocols for methacholine challenge test (MCT). Although new devices have different delivery system compared to old ones, previous protocols are still used, which cannot guarantee adequate diagnoses of asthma. Another important issue is the recent recommendation in European Respiratory Society (ERS) technical standard guideline to use a delivered methacholine dose that causes a 20% decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (PD 20). Although the previous protocol based on the methacholine concentration causing a 20% decrease in FEV1 (PC 20) has been used globally, several studies have reported that PD 20 is more reliable and applicable for new protocols of MCT. Indeed, a tidal breathing inhalation protocol using a breath-actuated or continuous nebulizer is recommended. Herein, we recommend 3 protocols for the MCT using new devices and provide a brief summary of the change in strategy based on the updated ERS guideline.