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.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF 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: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

With advancements in both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments, significant changes have occurred in heart failure (HF) management. The previous Korean HF registries, namely the Korea Heart Failure Registry (KorHF-registry) and Korean Acute Heart Failure Registry (KorAHF-registry), no longer accurately reflect contemporary acute heart failure (AHF) patients. Our objective is to assess contemporary AHF patients through a nationwide registry encompassing various aspects, such as clinical characteristics, management approaches, hospital course, and long-term outcomes of individuals hospitalized for AHF in Korea. This prospective observational multicenter cohort study (KorHF III) is organized by the Korean Society of Heart Failure. We aim to prospectively enroll 7,000 or more patients hospitalized for AHF at 47 tertiary hospitals in Korea starting from March 2018. Eligible patients exhibit signs and symptoms of HF and demonstrate either lung congestion or objective evidence of structural or functional cardiac abnormalities in echocardiography, or isolated right-sided HF. Patients will be followed up for up to 5 years after enrollment in the registry to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes. KorHF III represents the nationwide AHF registry that will elucidate the clinical characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of contemporary AHF patients in Korea.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.

Purpose: Robot-assisted surgery is readily applied to every type of colorectal surgeries. However, studies showing the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery (RS) have dealt with rectal cancer more than colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate how technical advantages of RS can translate into actual clinical outcomes that represent postoperative systemic response. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases in a single tertiary medical center in Korea. Patients with primary colon cancer who underwent curative resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was done to adjust baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor profile, pathologic stage, operating surgeon, surgery extent) between open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and RS groups. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 66 patients in each group for analysis, and there was no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Maximal postoperative leukocyte count was lowest in the RS group and highest in the OS group (P=0.021). Similar results were observed for postoperative neutrophil count (P=0.024). Postoperative prognostic nutritional index was highest in the RS group and lowest in the OS group (P<0.001). The time taken to first flatus and soft diet resumption was longest in the OS group and shortest in the RS group (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Among all groups, other short-term postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay and complications did not show significant difference, and oncological survival results were similar. Conclusion Better postoperative inflammatory indices in the RS group may correlate with their faster recovery of bowel motility and diet resumption compared to LS and OS groups.