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.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the Cancer Public Library Database (CPLD), established under the Korean Clinical Data Utilization for Research Excellence project (K-CURE). The CPLD links data from four major population-based public sources: the Korea National Cancer Incidence Database in the Korea Central Cancer Registry, cause-of-death data in Statistics Korea, the National Health Information Database in the National Health Insurance Service, and the National Health Insurance Research Database in the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. These databases are linked using an encrypted resident registration number. The CPLD, established in 2022 and updated annually, comprises 1,983,499 men and women newly diagnosed with cancer between 2012 and 2019. It contains data on cancer registration and death, demographics, medical claims, general health checkups, and national cancer screening. The most common cancers among men in the CPLD were stomach (16.1%), lung (14.0%), colorectal (13.3%), prostate (9.6%), and liver (9.3%) cancers. The most common cancers among women were thyroid (20.4%), breast (16.6%), colorectal (9.0%), stomach (7.8%), and lung (6.2%) cancers. Among them, 571,285 died between 2012 and 2020 owing to cancer (89.2%) or other causes (10.8%). Upon approval, the CPLD is accessible to researchers through the K-CURE portal. The CPLD is a unique resource for diverse cancer research to investigate medical use before a cancer diagnosis, during initial diagnosis and treatment, and long-term follow-up. This offers expanded insight into healthcare delivery across the cancer continuum, from screening to end-of-life care.

Purpose: Renal tumors account for approximately 7% of all childhood cancers. These include Wilms tumor (WT), clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), malignant rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (MRTK), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) and other rare tumors. We investigated the epidemiology of pediatric renal tumors in Korea. Materials and Methods: From January 2001 to December 2015, data of pediatric patients (0–18 years) newly-diagnosed with renal tumors at 26 hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among 439 patients (male, 240), the most common tumor was WT (n=342, 77.9%), followed by RCC (n=36, 8.2%), CCSK (n=24, 5.5%), MRTK (n=16, 3.6%), CMN (n=12, 2.7%), and others (n=9, 2.1%). Median age at diagnosis was 27.1 months (range 0-225.5) and median follow-up duration was 88.5 months (range 0-211.6). Overall, 32 patients died, of whom 17, 11, 1, and 3 died of relapse, progressive disease, second malignant neoplasm, and treatment-related mortality. Five-year overall survival and event free survival were 97.2% and 84.8% in WT, 90.6% and 82.1% in RCC, 81.1% and 63.6% in CCSK, 60.3% and 56.2% in MRTK, and 100% and 91.7% in CMN, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion The pediatric renal tumor types in Korea are similar to those previously reported in other countries. WT accounted for a large proportion and survival was excellent. Non-Wilms renal tumors included a variety of tumors and showed inferior outcome, especially MRTK. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the treatment and analyze the genetic characteristics of pediatric renal tumors in Korea.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare each strain’s number of microorganisms found in oral samples collected using various collection methods. Methods: Twenty-two adults aged 40 and above participated in the study. Oral samples were collected from subjects using three different methods (stimulated saliva, oral biofilm, and calculus), and the collected samples were analyzed using the multiplex real-time Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. Results: The study included 22 subjects (2 men, 20 women) with an age range of 40-75 years.Healthy oral condition was observed in 10 subjects, while the remaining 12 had periodontitis. The saliva and biofilm collection methods for oral microorganisms detected Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Tannerella forsynthesis (Tf), and Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), which are the causative bacteria of periodontal disease, more effectively compared with the calculus group. In addition, the saliva group showed a better ability to detect Streptococcus mutans (Sm) which causes dental caries, compared with the biofilm and calculus groups. Comparisons based on the presence or absence of periodontitis and the collection method revealed a statistically significant difference in the number of oral microorganisms only in case of Sm strain. Conclusions The frequency of expression of certain strains varies according to the method of collection of oral microorganisms. Further, the saliva and biofilm methods of collecting oral microorganisms are more suitable for quantitative analysis of bacteria causing periodontal disease.

Background/Aims: Little is known about the clinical course of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to investigate the clinical course of HBV infection and IBD and to analyze liver dysfunction risks in patients undergoing anti-TNF-α therapy. Methods: This retrospective multinational study involved multiple centers in Korea, China, Tai-wan, and Japan. We enrolled IBD patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection, who received anti-TNF-α therapy. The patients’ medical records were reviewed, and data were collected using a web-based case report form. Results: Overall, 191 patients (77 ulcerative colitis and 114 Crohn’s disease) were included, 28.3% of whom received prophylactic antivirals. During a median follow-up duration of 32.4 months, 7.3% of patients experienced liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation. Among patients with chronic HBV infection, the proportion experiencing liver dysfunction was significantly higher in the non-prophylaxis group (26% vs 8%, p=0.02). Liver dysfunction occurred in one patient with resolved HBV infection. Antiviral prophylaxis was independently associated with an 84% reduction in liver dysfunction risk in patients with chronic HBV infection (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.66; p=0.01). The clinical course of IBD was not associated with liver dysfunction or the administration of antiviral prophylaxis. Conclusions Liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation can occur in HBV-infected IBD patients treated with anti-TNF-α agents. Careful monitoring is needed in these patients, and antivirals should be administered, especially to those with chronic HBV infection.