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.

Xanthogranulomatous osteomyelitis (XO) is a rare chronic inflammatory bone disease characterized by the presence of cholesterol-laden foam macrophages, histiocytes, and plasma cells. We report the case of a 41-year-old man with end-stage renal disease who had undergone deceased donor kidney transplantation 4 years earlier. He presented with a chest wall mass that he had first identified 2 weeks prior to admission. Computed tomography revealed a periosseous heterogeneously enhancing soft tissue mass adjacent to the sternal end of the left clavicle, accompanied by irregular and destructive osteolytic lesions on the left side of the sternal manubrium. A total mass resection, which included partial clavicle and sternum removal, was performed. Pathological examination revealed foamy histiocytes along with numerous lymphoplasmacytic cells, confirming the diagnosis of XO. This case underscores the potential for XO to develop following kidney transplantation.

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases.This position paper focuses on the clinical management of valvular heart diseases with reference to the guidelines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee tried to reflect the recently published results on the topic of valvular heart diseases and Korean data by a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In part I of this article, we will review and discuss the current position of aortic valve disease in Korea.

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases.This position paper focuses on the diagnosis and management of valvular heart diseases with referring to the guide‑ lines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee sought to reflect national data on the topic of valvular heart diseases published to date through a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In the part II of this article, we intend to pre‑ sent recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of mitral valve disease and tricuspid valve disease.

Background: We aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of gamma knife radiosurgery (GKS) for cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs). Methods: Among the 233 CCM patients who underwent GKS, 79 adult patients (96 lesions) followed for over 10 years were included and analyzed retrospectively. Annual hemorrhage rate (AHR) was analyzed the entire cohort of 233 patients and the subset of 79 enrolled patients by dividing lesions into overall CCM lesions and brainstem lesions. AHR, neurologic outcome, adverse radiation effect (ARE), and changes of lesions in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared before and after GKS. Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for hemorrhage following GKS. Results: Mean follow-up duration of 79 enrolled patients was 14 years (range, 10–23 years).The AHR of all CCMs for entire cohort at each time point was 17.8% (pre-GKS), 5.9% (≤ 2 years post-GKS), 1.8% (≤ 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of all CCM for 79 enrolled patients was 21.4% (pre-GKS), 3.8% (2 years post-GKS), 1.4% (10 years post-GKS), and 2.3% (> 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of brainstem cavernous malformation (CM) for entire cohort at each time point was 22.4% (pre-GKS), 10.1% (≤ 2 years post-GKS), 3.2% (≤ 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of brainstem CM for 79 enrolled patients was 27.2% (pre-GKS), 5.8% (2 years post-GKS), 3.4% (10 years post-GKS), and 3.5% (> 10 years post-GKS). Out of the 79 enrolled patients, 35 presented with focal neurologic deficits at the initial clinical visit. Among these patients, 74.3% showed recovery at the last follow-up. Symptomatic ARE occurred in five (6.4%) patients. No mortality occurred. Most lesions were decreased in size at the last follow-up MRI. Previous hemorrhage history (hazard ratio [HR], 8.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–65.88; P = 0.043), and brainstem location (HR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.26–7.64; P = 0.014) were significant risk factors for hemorrhage event. Conclusion GKS for CCM showed favorable long-term outcomes. GKS should be considered for CCM, especially when it has a previous hemorrhage history and brainstem location.