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.

Methods: This study included 104 patients who underwent ULIF using the “insert and revolve technique” between July 2019 and September 2022. The patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified McNab’s criteria. Changes in segmental lordosis (SL), intervertebral disc height (IVDH), segmental coronal alignment (SCA), cage subsidence, and fusion grade were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The VAS scores for leg and back pain and ODI score showed significant improvement. Based on the Macnab’s criteria, 97 patients showed excellent outcomes and seven demonstrated good outcomes at 12 months. The mean IVDH increased from 6.3±2 to 10±2.1 mm immediately after surgery and 10±1.1 mm at 6 months. SL improved from 9.3°±11.5° to 17.78°±8.1°, while SCA improved from 7.7°±2.1° to 3.4°±1.2° at 1 year. Moreover, 92 and 11 patients showed grade 1 and 2 fusion, respectively, according to the Bridwell grading at 1 year. Conclusions The “insert and revolve technique” facilitates the successful insertion of large cages, contributing to the restoration of disc height and coronal and sagittal spinal correction with favorable fusion rates.

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.

Rare diseases are characterized by a low prevalence, which often means that patients with such diseases are undiagnosed and do not have effective treatment options. Neurodevelopmental and neurological disorders make up around 40% of rare diseases and in the past decade, there has been a surge in the identification of genes linked to these conditions. This has created the need for model organisms to reveal mechanisms and to assess therapeutic methods. Different model animals have been employed, like Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila, zebrafish, and mice, to investigate the rare neurological diseases and to identify the causative genes. While the zebrafish has become a popular animal model in the last decade, mainly for studying brain development, understanding neural circuits, and conducting chemical screens, the mouse has been a very well-known model for decades. This review explores the strengths and limitations of using zebrafish as a vertebrate animal model for rare neurological disorders, emphasizing the features that make this animal model promising for the research on these disorders.

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.

Objective: Most affective neuroscience studies use pictures from the International Affective Picture System or standard facial expressions to elicit emotional experiences. The attention system, including the prefrontal cortex, can mediate emotional regulation in response to stimulation with emotional faces. We hypothesized that emotional experience is associated with brain activity within the neocortex. In addition, modification within the neocortex may be associated with brain activity within the attention system. Methods: Thirty-one healthy adult participants were recruited to be assessed for emotional expression using clinical scales of happiness, sadness, anxiety, and anger as and for emotional experience using brain activity in response to pictures of facial emotional expressions. The attention system was assessed using brain activity in response to the go-no-go task. Results: We found that emotional experience was associated with brain activity within the frontotemporal cortices, while emotional expression was associated with brain activity within the temporal and insular cortices. In addition, the association of brain activity between emotional experiences and expressions of sadness and anxiety was affected by brain activity within the anterior cingulate gyrus in response to the go-no-go task. Conclusion Emotional expression may be associated with brain activity within the temporal cortex, whereas emotional experience may be associated with brain activity within the frontotemporal cortices. In addition, the attention system may interfere with the connection between emotional expression and experience.

Background/Aims: The use of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is recommended for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Stent-related adverse events might differ according to the position of the stent through the ampulla of Vater (AOV). We retrospectively evaluated SEMS patency and adverse events according to the position of the SEMS. Methods: In total, 280 patients who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement due to malignant distal biliary obstruction were analyzed retrospectively. Suprapapillary and transpapillary SEMS insertions were performed on 51 patients and 229 patients, respectively. Results: Between the suprapapillary group (SPG) and transpapillary group (TPG), the stent patency period was not significantly different (median [95% confidence interval]: 107 days [82.3 to 131.7] vs 120 days [99.3 to 140.7], p=0.559). There was also no significant difference in the rate of adverse events. In subgroup analysis, the stent patency for an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV was found to be significantly shorter than that for an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV in the SPG (64 days [0 to 160.4] vs 127 days [82.0 to 171.9], p<0.001) and TPG (87 days [52.5 to 121.5] vs 130 [97.0 to 162.9], p<0.001). Patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV in both groups had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion (SPG: 40.0% vs 4.9%, p=0.002; TPG: 28.6% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) than patients with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV. Conclusions The SPG and TPG showed similar results in terms of stent patency and rate of adverse events. However, patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion with shorter stent patency than those with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV, regardless of stent position.

This study evaluated the consistency between two quantitative fit test devices with different methods of ambient aerosol counting. Three types of respirators (N95, half mask, and full facepiece) were worn by 50 participants (male, n = 25; female, n = 25), PortaCount (Pro+ 8038) and MT (05U) were connected to one probe to one mask, and fit factors (FFs) were measured simultaneously with the original and modified protocols. As a result of comparing MT FFs with PortaCount FFs as references and by applying for the pass/fail criteria (FF = 100), the consistency between the two devices for half masks and full facepieces was very high. N95 was somewhat weaker than the two type of respirators in the consistency; however, the correlation between the two devices was very strong (p < 0.0001). The results showed that an FF of 100 as measured by PortaCount was likely to be measured as 75 by the MT. Therefore, when performing the fit test for N95 using the MT and pass level of FF 100, a certain level of adjustment is necessary, whether end-user or putting a scaling factor by manufacturer.