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.

Purpose: It is important to understand changes in energy requirements in critically ill patients with sepsis. This study investigates alterations in energy requirements based on the clinical course of sepsis in patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) using indirect calorimetry. Methods: In this prospective study, 36 patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit with sepsis were analyzed. Using indirect calorimetry, the resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory quotient (RQ) were assessed on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th day of Intensive Care Unit admission. Measured REE through indirect calorimetry was compared with the predictive equations (Weight-based, Harris-Benedict, IretonJones, and Penn state 2003) using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Measured REE was highest on Day 1 and remained unchanged on Day 3 and 7 (Day 1 vs. Day 3 vs. Day 7: 24.29 ± 3.72 kcal/kg vs. 22.42 ± 3.72 kcal/kg vs. 23.26 ± 5.78 kcal/kg). RQ decreased on Day 3 but increased on Day 7 after caloric intake (Day 1 vs. Day 3 vs. Day 7: 0.69 ± 0.06 vs. 0.67 ± 0.05 vs. 0.71 ± 0.06). Comparing the correlation between the 4 predictive equations and the measured REE, the Penn state 2003 equation demonstrated the highest correlation at each time point, although it showed a decreasing trend over time (Penn state equation ICC: Day 1-0.71, Day 3-0.65, Day 7-0.53). Conclusion In sepsis patients, it is necessary to understand metabolic changes according to the clinical course and provide appropriate calories as determined by using indirect calorimetry when the patients enter the stable phase.

Purpose: It is important to understand changes in energy requirements in critically ill patients with sepsis. This study investigates alterations in energy requirements based on the clinical course of sepsis in patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) using indirect calorimetry. Methods: In this prospective study, 36 patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit with sepsis were analyzed. Using indirect calorimetry, the resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory quotient (RQ) were assessed on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th day of Intensive Care Unit admission. Measured REE through indirect calorimetry was compared with the predictive equations (Weight-based, Harris-Benedict, IretonJones, and Penn state 2003) using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Measured REE was highest on Day 1 and remained unchanged on Day 3 and 7 (Day 1 vs. Day 3 vs. Day 7: 24.29 ± 3.72 kcal/kg vs. 22.42 ± 3.72 kcal/kg vs. 23.26 ± 5.78 kcal/kg). RQ decreased on Day 3 but increased on Day 7 after caloric intake (Day 1 vs. Day 3 vs. Day 7: 0.69 ± 0.06 vs. 0.67 ± 0.05 vs. 0.71 ± 0.06). Comparing the correlation between the 4 predictive equations and the measured REE, the Penn state 2003 equation demonstrated the highest correlation at each time point, although it showed a decreasing trend over time (Penn state equation ICC: Day 1-0.71, Day 3-0.65, Day 7-0.53). Conclusion In sepsis patients, it is necessary to understand metabolic changes according to the clinical course and provide appropriate calories as determined by using indirect calorimetry when the patients enter the stable phase.

Purpose: It is important to understand changes in energy requirements in critically ill patients with sepsis. This study investigates alterations in energy requirements based on the clinical course of sepsis in patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) using indirect calorimetry. Methods: In this prospective study, 36 patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit with sepsis were analyzed. Using indirect calorimetry, the resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory quotient (RQ) were assessed on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th day of Intensive Care Unit admission. Measured REE through indirect calorimetry was compared with the predictive equations (Weight-based, Harris-Benedict, IretonJones, and Penn state 2003) using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Measured REE was highest on Day 1 and remained unchanged on Day 3 and 7 (Day 1 vs. Day 3 vs. Day 7: 24.29 ± 3.72 kcal/kg vs. 22.42 ± 3.72 kcal/kg vs. 23.26 ± 5.78 kcal/kg). RQ decreased on Day 3 but increased on Day 7 after caloric intake (Day 1 vs. Day 3 vs. Day 7: 0.69 ± 0.06 vs. 0.67 ± 0.05 vs. 0.71 ± 0.06). Comparing the correlation between the 4 predictive equations and the measured REE, the Penn state 2003 equation demonstrated the highest correlation at each time point, although it showed a decreasing trend over time (Penn state equation ICC: Day 1-0.71, Day 3-0.65, Day 7-0.53). Conclusion In sepsis patients, it is necessary to understand metabolic changes according to the clinical course and provide appropriate calories as determined by using indirect calorimetry when the patients enter the stable phase.

Objectives: Limited information is available concerning the epidemiology of stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Republic of Korea. This study aimed to develop a national surveillance system to monitor the incidence of stroke and AMI using national claims data. Methods: We developed and validated identification algorithms for stroke and AMI using claims data. This validation involved a 2-stage stratified sampling method with a review of medical records for sampled cases. The weighted positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated based on the sampling structure and the correspondingsampling rates. Incident cases and the incidence rates of stroke and AMI in the Republic ofKorea were estimated by applying the algorithms and weighted PPV and NPV to the 2018National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: In total, 2,200 cases (1,086 stroke cases and 1,114 AMI cases) were sampled from the 2018 claims database. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms were 94.3% and 88.6% for stroke and 97.9% and 90.1% for AMI, respectively. The estimated number of cases, including recurrent events, was 150,837 for stroke and 40,529 for AMI in 2018. The age- and sex-standardized incidence rate for stroke and AMI was 180.2 and 46.1 cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively, in 2018. Conclusion This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing a national surveillance system based on claims data and identification algorithms for stroke and AMI to monitor their incidence rates.

Free-living amoebae (FLA) are found in diverse environments, such as soils, rivers, and seas. Hence, they can be used as bioindicators to assess the water quality based solely on their presence. In this study, we determined the presence of FLA in river water by filtering water samples collected from various sites and culturing the resulting filtrates. FLA were detected in all the water samples with varying quality grades (Grades Ι-V). The significant increase in the size of the amoebae population with the deterioration in the water quality. Monoxenic cultures of the amoebae were performed, and genomic DNAs were isolated, among which 18S rDNAs were sequenced to identify the amoeba species. Of the 12 species identified, 10 belonged to the Acanthamoeba genus; of the remaining 2 species, one was identified as Vannella croatica and the other as a species of Vermamoeba. Acanthamoeba was detected in samples with Grades Ι to VI quality, whereas the Vermamoeba species was present only in Grade Ι water. V. croatica was found exclusively in water with Grade ΙΙ quality. Following morphological observations, genomic DNA was sequenced using 16S rDNA to determine whether the species of Acanthamoeba harbored endosymbionts. Most of the isolated Acanthamoeba contained endosymbionts, among which 4 species of endogenous bacteria were identified and examined using transmission electron microscopy. This study provides evidence that the distribution of amoebae other than Acanthamoeba may be associated with water quality. However, further confirmation will be required based on accurate water quality ratings and assessments using a more diverse range of FLA.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.