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.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Background: Due to the importance of the cold chain related to vaccine transportation, it is necessary to establish a blood cold chain operation strategy by checking the status of blood transportation from blood donation to transfusion. Methods: The blood transportation system and blood storage facilities were checked by inspecting the Korean Red Cross (KRC) Blood Centers and its affiliated supplier and Hanmaeum Blood Center. The status of the cold chain was evaluated through an interview with the quality control manager or blood supply team leader. For the hospital, the status was investigated from the perspective of the 30-min rule. A questionnaire survey was conducted for medical technicians and nurses working at the hospital. Results: Data on temperature during transport of blood components were computerized, and all standards were met. A nationwide network that could supply blood from the blood supply center to the hospitals within 2 hours was established. The frequency of temperature monitoring in the blood transport box and constant temperature check in the transport box during long-distance transport were evaluated. Conclusion This study confirmed that blood storage and transportation in Korea complied with the cold chain standards of high-income countries or higher. The evaluation of the cold chain is a constantly evolving process requiring continuous attention. When standards for storage and transportation of blood products are established, strict regulations and examinations will be required.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: After the first acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a considerable proportion of patients are newly diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM). However, in AMI, controversy remains regarding the disparity in prognosis between previously diagnosed DM (known-DM) and newly diagnosed DM (new-DM). METHODS: The study included 10,455 patients with AMI (non-DM, 6,236; new-DM, 659; known-DM, 3,560) admitted to one of 15 participating centers in Korea between November 2011 and January 2016 (average follow-up, 523 days). We compared the characteristics and clinical course of patients with known-DM and those with new- or non-DM. RESULTS: Compared to patients with known-DM, those with new-DM or non-DM were younger, more likely to be male, and less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, prior stroke, angina, or myocardial infarction. Compared to patients with new-DM or non-DM (reference), those with known-DM had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.35; p=0.004), cardiac death (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01–1.57; p=0.042), and congestive heart failure (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20–2.08). Unlike known-DM, new-DM did not increase the risk of cardiac events (including death). CONCLUSIONS: Known-DM was associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events after AMI, while new-DM had a similar risk of cardiac events as that noted for non-DM. There were different cardiovascular outcomes according to diabetes status in patients with AMI.
Death ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Dyslipidemias ; Follow-Up Studies ; Heart Failure ; Humans ; Hypertension ; Korea ; Male ; Myocardial Infarction ; Prognosis ; Stroke

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: After the first acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a considerable proportion of patients are newly diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM). However, in AMI, controversy remains regarding the disparity in prognosis between previously diagnosed DM (known-DM) and newly diagnosed DM (new-DM). METHODS: The study included 10,455 patients with AMI (non-DM, 6,236; new-DM, 659; known-DM, 3,560) admitted to one of 15 participating centers in Korea between November 2011 and January 2016 (average follow-up, 523 days). We compared the characteristics and clinical course of patients with known-DM and those with new- or non-DM. RESULTS: Compared to patients with known-DM, those with new-DM or non-DM were younger, more likely to be male, and less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, prior stroke, angina, or myocardial infarction. Compared to patients with new-DM or non-DM (reference), those with known-DM had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.35; p=0.004), cardiac death (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01–1.57; p=0.042), and congestive heart failure (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20–2.08). Unlike known-DM, new-DM did not increase the risk of cardiac events (including death). CONCLUSIONS Known-DM was associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events after AMI, while new-DM had a similar risk of cardiac events as that noted for non-DM. There were different cardiovascular outcomes according to diabetes status in patients with AMI.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Combination antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of ischemic stroke compared with aspirin monotherapy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. The underlying mechanism, however, remains unclear. In addition, the association between platelet inhibition and thrombogenicity in NVAF has not been evaluated. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We randomized 60 patients with NVAF that were taking 100 mg of aspirin daily (>1 month) to adding 75 mg of clopidogrel daily (CLPD group), 100 mg of cilostazol twice daily (CILO group), or 1000 mg of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid twice daily (PUFA group). Biomarkers (von Willebrand factor antigen [vWF:Ag], fibrinogen, D-dimer, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]) and platelet reactivity (PR), which were the levels stimulated by adenosine diphosphate (ADP), thrombin-receptor agonist peptide, collagen, and arachidonic acid, were measured at baseline and 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: Combination antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced vWF:Ag and fibrinogen levels (7.7 IU/dL, p=0.015 and 15.7 mg/dL, p=0.005, respectively), but no changes were found in D-dimer and hs-CRP levels. The CLPD and CILO groups showed fibrinogen and vWF:Ag level reductions (24.9 mg/dL, p=0.015 and 9.3 IU/dL, p=0.044, respectively), whereas the PUFA group did not show any differences in biomarkers. Irrespective of regimen, the changes in fibrinogen and vWF:Ag levels were mainly associated with the change in ADP-mediated PR (r=0.339, p=0.008 and r=0.322, p=0.012, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with NVAF, combination antiplatelet therapy showed reductions for vWF:Ag and fibrinogen levels, which may be associated with the inhibitory levels of ADP-mediated PR. The clinical implications of these findings need to be evaluated in future trials.
Adenosine Diphosphate ; Arachidonic Acid ; Aspirin ; Atrial Fibrillation* ; Biomarkers ; Blood Platelets ; C-Reactive Protein ; Collagen ; Fibrinogen ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors ; Stroke

BACKGROUND: The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) has been providing a nationwide, one-day training program for workers of hospital blood centers once a year since 2013. We evaluated the achievement levels of the program through surveys. METHODS: The survey was conducted immediately after the program in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Respondents' occupations, institutions, program contents, and operational aspects were asked. RESULTS: The response rate was 56.2%∼73.2%. The occupations of respondents were medical technologists 66.9%∼75.7%, nurses 16.1%∼22.1%, and others (administrators, et al.) 1.5%∼11.3%. About 86.1%∼88.2% of respondents answered that the program as a whole was satisfactory or very satisfactory; 88.9%∼94.7% thought that it is necessary or very necessary; 77.9%∼84.1% answered that the appropriate length of the program was one day; 53.8%∼69.1% answered that the appropriate number of program is once per year; and 23.4%∼53.8% or 40.3%∼61.4% answered that the appropriate season for the program by the KCDC should be the first or the second quarter, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the training program plays a useful role in meeting the needs of workers for hospital blood centers.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)* ; Education* ; Humans ; Korea* ; Medical Laboratory Personnel ; Occupations ; Seasons ; Surveys and Questionnaires