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.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a comprehensive practical guide for enteral nutrition (EN) designed to enhance patient safety and reduce complications in Korea. Under the leadership of the Korean Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (KSPEN), the initiative sought to standardize EN procedures, improve decision-making, and promote effective multidisciplinary communication. Methods: The KSPEN EN committee identified key questions related to EN practices and organized them into seven sections such as prescribing, delivery route selection, formula preparation, administration, and quality management. Twenty-one experts, selected based on their expertise, conducted a thorough literature review to formulate evidence-based recommendations. Drafts underwent peer review both within and across disciplines, with final revisions completed by the KSPEN Guideline Committee. The guide, which will be published in three installments, addresses critical elements of EN therapy and safety protocols. Results: The practical guide recommends that EN orders include detailed elements and advocates the use of electronic medical records for communication. Standardized prescription forms and supplementary safety measures are outlined. Review frequency is adjusted according to patient condition—daily for critically ill or unstable patients and as dictated by institutional protocols for stable patients. Evidence indicates that adherence to these protocols reduces mortality, complications, and prescription errors. Conclusion The KSPEN practical guide offers a robust framework for the safe delivery of EN tailored to Korea’s healthcare context. It emphasizes standardized protocols and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve nutritional outcomes, patient safety, and operational efficiency. Rigorous implementation and monitoring of adherence are critical for its success.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

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.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a comprehensive practical guide for enteral nutrition (EN) designed to enhance patient safety and reduce complications in Korea. Under the leadership of the Korean Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (KSPEN), the initiative sought to standardize EN procedures, improve decision-making, and promote effective multidisciplinary communication. Methods: The KSPEN EN committee identified key questions related to EN practices and organized them into seven sections such as prescribing, delivery route selection, formula preparation, administration, and quality management. Twenty-one experts, selected based on their expertise, conducted a thorough literature review to formulate evidence-based recommendations. Drafts underwent peer review both within and across disciplines, with final revisions completed by the KSPEN Guideline Committee. The guide, which will be published in three installments, addresses critical elements of EN therapy and safety protocols. Results: The practical guide recommends that EN orders include detailed elements and advocates the use of electronic medical records for communication. Standardized prescription forms and supplementary safety measures are outlined. Review frequency is adjusted according to patient condition—daily for critically ill or unstable patients and as dictated by institutional protocols for stable patients. Evidence indicates that adherence to these protocols reduces mortality, complications, and prescription errors. Conclusion The KSPEN practical guide offers a robust framework for the safe delivery of EN tailored to Korea’s healthcare context. It emphasizes standardized protocols and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve nutritional outcomes, patient safety, and operational efficiency. Rigorous implementation and monitoring of adherence are critical for its success.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a comprehensive practical guide for enteral nutrition (EN) designed to enhance patient safety and reduce complications in Korea. Under the leadership of the Korean Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (KSPEN), the initiative sought to standardize EN procedures, improve decision-making, and promote effective multidisciplinary communication. Methods: The KSPEN EN committee identified key questions related to EN practices and organized them into seven sections such as prescribing, delivery route selection, formula preparation, administration, and quality management. Twenty-one experts, selected based on their expertise, conducted a thorough literature review to formulate evidence-based recommendations. Drafts underwent peer review both within and across disciplines, with final revisions completed by the KSPEN Guideline Committee. The guide, which will be published in three installments, addresses critical elements of EN therapy and safety protocols. Results: The practical guide recommends that EN orders include detailed elements and advocates the use of electronic medical records for communication. Standardized prescription forms and supplementary safety measures are outlined. Review frequency is adjusted according to patient condition—daily for critically ill or unstable patients and as dictated by institutional protocols for stable patients. Evidence indicates that adherence to these protocols reduces mortality, complications, and prescription errors. Conclusion The KSPEN practical guide offers a robust framework for the safe delivery of EN tailored to Korea’s healthcare context. It emphasizes standardized protocols and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve nutritional outcomes, patient safety, and operational efficiency. Rigorous implementation and monitoring of adherence are critical for its success.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

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.