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.

Pediatric differentiated thyroid cancers (DTCs), mostly papillary thyroid cancer (PTC, 80-90%), are diagnosed at more advanced stages with larger tumor sizes and higher rates of locoregional and/or lung metastasis. Despite the higher recurrence rates of pediatric cancers than of adult thyroid cancers, pediatric patients demonstrate a lower mortality rate and more favorable prognosis. Considering the more advanced stage at diagnosis in pediatric patients, preoperative evaluation is crucial to determine the extent of surgery required. Furthermore, if hereditary tumor syndrome is suspected, genetic testing is required. Recommendations for pediatric DTCs focus on the surgical principles, radioiodine therapy according to the postoperative risk level, treatment and follow-up of recurrent or persistent diseases, and treatment of patients with radioiodine-refractory PTCs on the basis of genetic drivers that are unique to pediatric patients.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) patients usually wonder if their condition will worsen after vaccination or if they should continue with the treatment they are receiving. Considering that many patients treated with dupilumab had previously experienced severe AD symptoms and flares, the concerns are more understandable. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the safety of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with AD treated with dupilumab. Methods: We enrolled 133 patients (101 dupilumab-treated and 32 systemic oral agentstreated as control group) with AD from six hospitals. Patients were asked about worsening pruritus and AD (5-point Likert scale) after vaccination. AD variables (eczema area and severity index [EASI], investigator’s global assessment [IGA], itch numerical rating scale [NRS], sleep NRS, and patient-oriented eczema measure [POEM]) were compared pre- and postvaccination. Adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Results: The incidence of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and worsening AD symptoms in dupilumab-treated patients were not significantly different compared with that in the control group. The itch NRS score increased significantly after vaccination (p<0.001).However, there were no statistically significant differences between the pre-and post-EASI, IGA, and POEM scores. Eight patients (7.9%) had worse EASI scores and required rescue therapy; however, most were easily managed with low-dose steroids or topical agents. None of the patients discontinued dupilumab treatment. Conclusion No serious adverse reactions were observed in patients with AD after COVID-19 vaccination. Exacerbation of pruritus and AD symptoms was observed but was mostly mild and transient.

Background: Dermatophyte infection is one of the most common skin diseases affecting the skin, hair, and nails. Despite widespread recognition of the disease, missing details and misperceptions are commonplace in the general population. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the public perception and behavior regarding dermatophytosis of the hands and feet. Methods: This results from an online survey conducted between July 2022 and August 2022. The survey included 1,000 Korean participants aged 20 to 69 years, of whom 60% experienced symptoms of tinea pedis or onychomycosis. The questionnaire focused on the awareness and personal experience of tinea pedis and perception of the treatment of dermatophytosis. Results: Of the 1,000 participants, nearly 80% regarded tinea pedis as a common skin condition by which anyone can be affected. Furthermore, 88.4% had heard that the treatment of tinea pedis could be harmful, causing skin rash (60.4%) and worsening liver function (48.5%). Among 896 participants who noticed suspicious symptoms, 81.2% did not visit the clinic because it was not severe (50.1%) and seemed easily manageable (25.7%). Of the respondents, 84.4% preferred to meet dermatologists rather than non-dermatologist doctors regarding skin diseases, mainly because of trust in experts and belief in a faster cure. Conclusion Providing accurate and detailed information via online media, educational campaigns, and medical papers can rectify misconceptions and improve patient appliance, contributing to public skin health.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate differentially expressed genes and their functions in the hippocampus and striatum after heroin administration in cynomolgus macaques of different ages. Methods: Cynomolgus monkeys were divided by age as follows: 1 year (A1, n = 2); 3 to 4 years (A2, n = 2); 6 to 8 years (A3, n = 2); and older than 11 years (A4, n = 2). After heroin was injected intramuscularly into the monkeys (0.6 mg/kg), we performed large-scale transcriptome profiling in the hippocampus (H) and striatum (S) using RNA sequencing technology. Some genes were validated with real-time quantitative PCR. Results: In the hippocampus, the gene expression of A1H was similar to that of A4H, while the gene expression of A2H was similar to that of A3H. Genes associated with the mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway (STMN1, FGF14, and MAPT) and -aminobutyric acid-ergic synapses (GABBR2 and GAD1) were differentially expressed among control and heroin-treated animals. Differential gene expression between A1S and A4S was the least significant, while differential gene expression between A3S and A2S was the most significant. Genes associated with the neurotrophin signaling pathway (NTRK1 and NGFR), autophagy (ATG5), and dopaminergic synapses (AKT1) in the striatum were differentially expressed among control and heroin-treated animals. Conclusion These results suggest that even a single heroin exposure can cause differential gene expression in the hippocampus and striatum of nonhuman primates at different ages.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected pneumonia emerged in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In this retrospective multicenter study, we investigated the clinical course and outcomes of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from early cases in Republic of Korea. Methods: All of the cases confirmed by real time polymerase chain reaction were enrolled from the 1st to the 28th patient nationwide. Clinical data were collected and analyzed for changes in clinical severity including laboratory, radiological, and virologic dynamics during the progression of illness. Results: The median age was 40 years (range, 20–73 years) and 15 (53.6%) patients were male. The most common symptoms were cough (28.6%) and sore throat (28.6%), followed by fever (25.0%). Diarrhea was not common (10.7%). Two patients had no symptoms. Initial chest X-ray (CXR) showed infiltration in 46.4% of the patients, but computed tomography scan confirmed pneumonia in 88.9% (16/18) of the patients. Six patients (21.4%) required supplemental oxygen therapy, but no one needed mechanical ventilation. Lymphopenia was more common in severe cases. Higher level of C-reactive protein and worsening of chest radiographic score was observed during the 5–7 day period after symptom onset. Viral shedding was high from day 1 of illness, especially from the upper respiratory tract (URT). Conclusion The prodromal symptoms of COVID-19 were mild and most patients did not have limitations of daily activity. Viral shedding from URT was high from the prodromal phase. Radiological pneumonia was common from the early days of illness, but it was frequently not evident in simple CXR. These findings could be plausible explanations for the easy and rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community.

PURPOSE: While tumor markers (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 [CA 19-9] and carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]) can aid in the diagnosis of biliary tract cancer, their prognostic role has not been clearly elucidated. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the prognostic role of tumor markers and tumor marker change in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with pathologically proven metastatic or relapsed biliary tract cancer who were treated in a phase II trial of first-line S-1 and cisplatin chemotherapy were enrolled. Serum tumor markers were measured at baseline and after the first cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among a total of 104 patients, 80 (77%) had elevated baseline tumor markers (69 with CA 19-9 elevation and 40 with CEA). A decline ≥ 30% of the elevated tumor marker level after the first cycle of chemotherapy conferred an improved time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and better chemotherapy response. Multivariate analysis revealed tumor marker decline as an independent positive prognostic factor of TTP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; p=0.003) and OS (adjusted HR, 0.37; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in each group of patients with CA 19-9 elevation and CEA elevation. In addition, elevated baseline CEA was associated with poor survival in both univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Tumor marker decline was associated with improved survival in biliary tract cancer. Measuring tumor marker after the first cycle of chemotherapy can be used as an early assessment of treatment outcome.
Antineoplastic Agents ; Biliary Tract Neoplasms* ; Biliary Tract* ; Biomarkers, Tumor ; CA-19-9 Antigen ; Carcinoembryonic Antigen ; Cisplatin* ; Diagnosis ; Drug Therapy* ; Humans ; Multivariate Analysis ; Treatment Outcome