Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

Purpose: The fifth World Health Organization (WHO) classification (2022 WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms have recently been published. In this study, patients were reclassified according to the revised classification and their prognoses were analyzed to confirm the clinical utility of the new classifications. Methods: We included 101 adult patients, 77 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 24 with myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS), who underwent bone marrow aspiration and next-generation sequencing (NGS) between August 2019 and July 2023. We reclassified the patients according to the revised criteria, examined the differences, and analyzed the prognosis using survival analysis. Results: According to the 2022 WHO and ICC, 23 (29.9%) patients and 32 (41.6%) patients were reclassified into different groups, respectively, due to the addition of myelodysplasia-related (MR) gene mutations to the diagnostic criteria or the addition of new entities associated with TP53 mutations. The median overall survival (OS) of patients with AML and MR gene mutations was shorter than that of patients in other AML groups; however, the difference was not significant. Patients with AML and TP53 mutation had a significantly shorter OS than the other AML group (p = 0.0014, median OS 2.3 vs 10.3 months). They also had significantly shorter OS than the AML and MR mutation group (p = 0.002, median OS 2.3 vs 9.6 months). Conclusion The revised classifications allow for a more detailed categorization based on genetic abnormalities, which may be helpful in predicting prognosis. AML with TP53 mutations is a new ICC category that has shown a high prognostic significance in a small number of cases.

Purpose: The fifth World Health Organization (WHO) classification (2022 WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms have recently been published. In this study, patients were reclassified according to the revised classification and their prognoses were analyzed to confirm the clinical utility of the new classifications. Methods: We included 101 adult patients, 77 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 24 with myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS), who underwent bone marrow aspiration and next-generation sequencing (NGS) between August 2019 and July 2023. We reclassified the patients according to the revised criteria, examined the differences, and analyzed the prognosis using survival analysis. Results: According to the 2022 WHO and ICC, 23 (29.9%) patients and 32 (41.6%) patients were reclassified into different groups, respectively, due to the addition of myelodysplasia-related (MR) gene mutations to the diagnostic criteria or the addition of new entities associated with TP53 mutations. The median overall survival (OS) of patients with AML and MR gene mutations was shorter than that of patients in other AML groups; however, the difference was not significant. Patients with AML and TP53 mutation had a significantly shorter OS than the other AML group (p = 0.0014, median OS 2.3 vs 10.3 months). They also had significantly shorter OS than the AML and MR mutation group (p = 0.002, median OS 2.3 vs 9.6 months). Conclusion The revised classifications allow for a more detailed categorization based on genetic abnormalities, which may be helpful in predicting prognosis. AML with TP53 mutations is a new ICC category that has shown a high prognostic significance in a small number of cases.

Purpose: The fifth World Health Organization (WHO) classification (2022 WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms have recently been published. In this study, patients were reclassified according to the revised classification and their prognoses were analyzed to confirm the clinical utility of the new classifications. Methods: We included 101 adult patients, 77 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 24 with myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS), who underwent bone marrow aspiration and next-generation sequencing (NGS) between August 2019 and July 2023. We reclassified the patients according to the revised criteria, examined the differences, and analyzed the prognosis using survival analysis. Results: According to the 2022 WHO and ICC, 23 (29.9%) patients and 32 (41.6%) patients were reclassified into different groups, respectively, due to the addition of myelodysplasia-related (MR) gene mutations to the diagnostic criteria or the addition of new entities associated with TP53 mutations. The median overall survival (OS) of patients with AML and MR gene mutations was shorter than that of patients in other AML groups; however, the difference was not significant. Patients with AML and TP53 mutation had a significantly shorter OS than the other AML group (p = 0.0014, median OS 2.3 vs 10.3 months). They also had significantly shorter OS than the AML and MR mutation group (p = 0.002, median OS 2.3 vs 9.6 months). Conclusion The revised classifications allow for a more detailed categorization based on genetic abnormalities, which may be helpful in predicting prognosis. AML with TP53 mutations is a new ICC category that has shown a high prognostic significance in a small number of cases.

Hereditary hemolytic anemia (HHA) is considered a group of rare hematological diseases in Korea, primarily because of its unique ethnic characteristics and diagnostic challenges.Recently, the prevalence of HHA has increased in Korea, reflecting the increasing number of international marriages and increased awareness of the disease. In particular, the diagnosis of red blood cell (RBC) enzymopathy experienced a resurgence, given the advances in diagnostic techniques. In 2007, the RBC Disorder Working Party of the Korean Society of Hematology developed the Korean Standard Operating Procedure for the Diagnosis of Hereditary Hemolytic Anemia, which has been continuously updated since then. The latest Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosing HHA recommends performing nextgeneration sequencing as a preliminary step before analyzing RBC membrane proteins and enzymes. Recent breakthroughs in molecular genetic testing methods, particularly nextgeneration sequencing, are proving critical in identifying and providing insight into cases of HHA with previously unknown diagnoses. These innovative molecular genetic testing methods have now become important tools for the management and care planning of patients with HHA. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of recent advances in molecular genetic testing for the diagnosis of HHA, with particular emphasis on the Korean context.

Background: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are widely used as adjuvant analgesics for postoperative pain. This meta-analysis compared the effects of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen and acetaminophen on postoperative opioid consumption and pain intensity after general anesthesia. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify relevant studies published up to May 2023. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of perioperative IV ibuprofen and acetaminophen on postoperative opioid consumption and pain after general anesthesia were included in the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Results: Eight studies with 494 participants were included. Compared to IV acetaminophen, IV ibuprofen significantly reduced 24 h opioid consumption, presented as morphine equivalents (mean difference [MD]: –6.01 mg, 95% CI [–8.60, –3.42], P < 0.00001, I2 = 55%), and pain scores (on a scale of 0–10) at 4–6 h (MD: –0.83, 95% CI [–1.29, –0.37], P = 0.0004, I2 = 65%) and 12 h (MD: –0.38, 95% CI [–0.68, –0.08], P = 0.01, I2 = 11%) postoperatively. These results were statistically significant in TSA. Pain scores at 24 h postoperatively and side effects were not significantly different between the two groups in the meta-analysis, and TSA revealed that the sample size was too small to adequately evaluate the effects, requiring further studies for conclusive results. Conclusions Perioperative IV ibuprofen reduced 24 h opioid consumption and pain severity up to 12 h postoperatively compared to acetaminophen. Additional research is required to assess pain intensity beyond 12 h and side effects.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.