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.

Remission is a primary end point of in clinical practice and trials of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The 2011 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) remission criteria were developed to provide a consensus definition of remission. This study aimed to assess the concordance between the new remission criteria and the physician’s clinical judgment of remission and also to identify factors that affect the discordance between these two approaches. A total of 3,209 patients with RA were included from the KORean Observational Study Network for Arthritis (KORONA) database. The frequency of remission was evaluated based on each approach. The agreement between the results was estimated by Cohen's kappa (κ). Patients with remission according to the 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria (i.e. the Boolean criteria) and/or physician judgment (n = 855) were divided into three groups: concordant remission, the Boolean criteria only, and physician judgment only. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors responsible for the assignment of patients with remission to one of the discordant groups rather than the concordant group. The remission rates using the Boolean criteria and physician judgment were 10.5% and 19.9%, respectively. The agreement between two approaches for remission was low (κ = 0.226) and the concordant remission rate was only 5.5% (n = 177). Pain affected classification in both discordant groups, whereas fatigue was associated with remission only by physician clinical judgment. The Boolean criteria were more stringent than clinical judgment. Patient subjective symptoms such as pain and fatigue were associated with discordance between the two approaches.
Arthritis ; Arthritis, Rheumatoid* ; Classification ; Consensus ; Fatigue ; Humans ; Judgment* ; Logistic Models ; Observational Study ; Rheumatic Diseases

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety of valsartan and rosuvastatin combination therapy with each treatment alone in hypercholesterolemic hypertensive patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients who met inclusion criteria were randomized to receive 1 of the following 2-month drug regimens: valsartan 160 mg plus rosuvastatin 20 mg, valsartan 160 mg plus placebo, or rosuvastatin 20 mg plus placebo. The primary efficacy variables were change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (sitDBP) and sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP), and percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) in the combination, valsartan, and rosuvastatin groups. Adverse events (AEs) during the study were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were screened and 123 of them were finally randomized. Changes of sitDBP by least squares mean (LSM) were -11.1, -7.2, and -3.6 mm Hg, respectively, and was greater in the combination, as compared to both valsartan (p=0.02) and rosuvastatin (p<0.001). Changes of sitSBP by LSM were -13.2, -10.8, and -4.9 mm Hg, and was greater in the combination, as compared to rosuvastatin (p=0.006) and not valsartan (p=0.42). Percentage changes of LDL-C by LSM were -52, -4, and -47% in each group, and was greater in the combination, as compared to valsartan (p<0.001), similar to rosuvastatin (p=0.16). Most AEs were mild and resolved by the end of the study. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with valsartan and rosuvastatin exhibited an additive blood pressure-lowering effect with acceptable tolerability, as compared to valsartan monotherapy. Its lipid lowering effect was similar to rosuvatatin monotherapy.
Blood Pressure ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Least-Squares Analysis ; Rosuvastatin Calcium ; Valsartan

In this article, on page 230, Fig. 2A needs to be corrected.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether findings on initial chest computed tomography (CT) of influenza pneumonia can help predict clinical outcome. METHODS: We reviewed all adult patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) with a confirmed diagnosis of novel influenza A H1N1 virus (2009 H1N1) pneumonia, who underwent chest CT upon admission between Aug 26, 2009 and Jan 31, 2010. Radiologic findings were characterized by type and pattern of opacities and zonal distribution. Clinical outcome measures were intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and inhospital death. RESULTS: Of 59 patients diagnosed with 2009 H1N1 pneumonia, 41 (69.5%) underwent chest CT on admission into ED. Nine (22%) of these patients developed adverse clinical outcomes requiring the following treatments: 9 (22.0%) ICU admissions, 5 (12.2%) mechanical ventilation, and 3 (7.3%) inhospital deaths. Counting the number of patients with more than 4 involved lobes, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for detection of adverse clinical outcome were 67%, 84%, 55% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Extensive involvement of both lungs (over 4 lobes) is related to ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and inhospital death. Initial chest CT may help predict an adverse clinical outcome of patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza pneumonia.
Adult ; Emergencies ; Fluconazole ; Humans ; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype ; Influenza, Human ; Intensive Care Units ; Lung ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Pneumonia ; Respiration, Artificial ; Thorax ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of chest computed tomographic (CT) parameters in acute submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2009, 268 consecutive patients with acute submassive PE that was confirmed by chest CT with pulmonary angiography in emergency room were studied. One experienced radiologist measured CT parameters and judged the presence of right ventricular dysfunction. CT parameters were analyzed to determine their ability to predict a major adverse event (MAE). RESULTS: There were 220 patients included and 61 (27.7%) had MAE. Left ventricular and right ventricular maximum minor axis (36.4+/-8.0 vs. 41.7+/-7.4, p<0.01; 45.7+/-9.4 vs. 41.5+/-7.6, p<0.01), superior vena cava diameter (19.2+/-3.4 vs. 18.0+/-3.4, p=0.02), azygos vein diameter (10.0+/-2.2 vs. 9.2+/-2.3, p=0.02), septal displacement (19 vs. 18, p<0.01) were significantly higher in MAE group than in no MAE group. Patients with MAE had high right ventricular/left ventricular dimension ratio (RV/LV ratio) compared to patients without MAE (1.34+/-0.48 vs. 1.03+/-0.28, p<0.01). The most useful cut-off value of RV/LV ratio for MAE was 1.3 and the area under the curve was 0.71 (0.62~0.79). CONCLUSION: RV/LV ratio on chest CT was a significant predictor of submassive PE related shock, intubation, in-hospital mortality, thrombolysis, thrombectomy within 30 days.
Angiography ; Axis, Cervical Vertebra ; Azygos Vein ; Displacement (Psychology) ; Emergencies ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Intubation ; Prognosis ; Pulmonary Embolism ; Shock ; Thorax ; Thrombectomy ; Vena Cava, Superior ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Right

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of chest computed tomographic (CT) parameters in acute submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2009, 268 consecutive patients with acute submassive PE that was confirmed by chest CT with pulmonary angiography in emergency room were studied. One experienced radiologist measured CT parameters and judged the presence of right ventricular dysfunction. CT parameters were analyzed to determine their ability to predict a major adverse event (MAE). RESULTS: There were 220 patients included and 61 (27.7%) had MAE. Left ventricular and right ventricular maximum minor axis (36.4+/-8.0 vs. 41.7+/-7.4, p<0.01; 45.7+/-9.4 vs. 41.5+/-7.6, p<0.01), superior vena cava diameter (19.2+/-3.4 vs. 18.0+/-3.4, p=0.02), azygos vein diameter (10.0+/-2.2 vs. 9.2+/-2.3, p=0.02), septal displacement (19 vs. 18, p<0.01) were significantly higher in MAE group than in no MAE group. Patients with MAE had high right ventricular/left ventricular dimension ratio (RV/LV ratio) compared to patients without MAE (1.34+/-0.48 vs. 1.03+/-0.28, p<0.01). The most useful cut-off value of RV/LV ratio for MAE was 1.3 and the area under the curve was 0.71 (0.62~0.79). CONCLUSION: RV/LV ratio on chest CT was a significant predictor of submassive PE related shock, intubation, in-hospital mortality, thrombolysis, thrombectomy within 30 days.
Angiography ; Axis, Cervical Vertebra ; Azygos Vein ; Displacement (Psychology) ; Emergencies ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Intubation ; Prognosis ; Pulmonary Embolism ; Shock ; Thorax ; Thrombectomy ; Vena Cava, Superior ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Right

PURPOSE: Transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate is a definitive diagnostic procedure for prostate cancer. However, the sensitivity of a third biopsy is very low in patients with serum prostate-specific antigen(PSA) 4-10 ng/ml and negative repeat prostate biopsy. In addition, multiple prostate biopsies usually have low patient compliance due to the pain and complications associated with the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of transurethral resection of the prostate(TURP) for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and clinical suspicion but with negative repeat biopsy samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2006, 51 patients less than 80 years old underwent TURP at our institution for lower urinary tract symptoms with a serum PSA 4-10ng/ml and negative repeat transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate. We examined their first serum PSA, serum PSA before the TURP, PSA density, as well as their age, prostate size and digital rectal exam findings. The probability for the detection of prostate cancer by TURP was investigated retrospectively. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in seven patients(13.7%). The total Gleason score for the biopsy specimens was 5 in two patients, 6 in one patient and 7 in four patients. There were significant differences between the prostate cancer group and the benign prostate hypertrophy group with regard to the PSA density and prostate volume. However there were no significant differences between the first serum PSA and the serum PSA before TURP in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In case with a high suspicion for prostate cancer, the TURP helps in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in those patients with a negative repeat biopsy and a serum PSA 4-10ng/ml and improvement of their lower urinary tract symptoms.
Aged, 80 and over ; Biopsy ; Biopsy, Needle* ; Diagnosis* ; Humans ; Hypertrophy ; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms* ; Needles* ; Neoplasm Grading ; Patient Compliance ; Prostate* ; Prostatic Neoplasms* ; Retrospective Studies ; Transurethral Resection of Prostate