Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

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.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

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.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

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.

Background: Identifying risk factors for postpartum type 2 diabetes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is crucial for effective interventions. We examined whether changes in insulin sensitivity after delivery affects the risk of type 2 diabetes in women with GDM. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 347 women with GDM or gestational impaired glucose tolerance, who attended the follow-up visits at 2 months postpartum and annually thereafter. Changes in insulin sensitivity were calculated using the Matsuda index at GDM diagnosis and at 2 months postpartum (ΔMatsuda index). After excluding women with pregestational diabetes or those followed up only once, we analyzed the risk of postpartum type 2 diabetes based on the ΔMatsuda index tertiles. Results: The incidence of type 2 diabetes at the two-month postpartum visit decreased with increasing ΔMatsuda index tertiles (16.4%, 9.5%, and 1.8%, P=0.001). During a 4.1-year follow-up, 26 out of 230 women who attended more than two follow-up visits (11.3%) developed type 2 diabetes. Compared to the lowest tertile, subjects in the highest ΔMatsuda index tertile showed a significantly reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12 to 0.93; P=0.036) after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion Improvement in insulin sensitivity after delivery is associated with a reduced risk of postpartum type 2 diabetes in women with GDM. Postpartum changes in insulin sensitivity could be a useful prediction for future type 2 diabetes development in women with GDM.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the use of active surgical co-management (SCM) by medical hospitalists for urology inpatient care. Materials and Methods: Since March 2019, a hospitalist-SCM program was implemented at a tertiary-care medical center, and a retrospective cohort study was conducted among co-managed urology inpatients. We assessed the clinical outcomes of urology inpatients who received SCM and compared passive SCM (co-management of patients by hospitalists only on request; March 2019 to June 2020) with active SCM (co-management of patients based on active screening by hospitalists; July 2020 to October 2021). We also evaluated the perceptions of patients who received SCM toward inpatient care quality, safety, and subjective satisfaction with inpatient care at discharge or when transferred to other wards. Results: We assessed 525 patients. Compared with the passive SCM group (n=205), patients in the active SCM group (n=320) required co-management for a significantly shorter duration (p=0.012) and tended to have a shorter length of stay at the urology ward (p=0.062) and less frequent unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge (p=0.095) while triggering significantly fewer events of rapid response team activation (p=0.002). No differences were found in the proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality rates, or inpatient care questionnaire scores. Conclusion Active surveillance and co-management of urology inpatients by medical hospitalists can improve the quality and efficacy of inpatient care without compromising subjective inpatient satisfaction.