Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

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: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

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: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Inhibitory effects of denosumab on bone remodeling are reversible and disappear once treatment is discontinued. Herein, we examined whether and to what extent delayed denosumab administration is also associated with fracture risk using nation-wide data. Methods: The study cohort included women aged 45 to 89 years who were started on denosumab for osteoporosis between October 2017 and December 2019 using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Participants were stratified according to the time of their subsequent denosumab administration from the last denosumab administration, including those with within 30 days early dosing (ED30), within the planned time of 180–210 days (referent), within 30–90 days of delayed dosing (DD90), within 90–180 days of delayed dosing (DD180), and longer than 181 days of delayed dosing (DD181+). The primary outcome was the incidence of all clinical fractures. Results: A total of 149,199 participants included and 2,323 all clinical fractures (including 1,223 vertebral fractures) occurred. The incidence of all fractures was significantly higher in the DD90 compared to reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4). The risk of all fracture was even higher in the longer delayed DD180 group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) and DD181+ group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2). Increased risks of fractures with delayed dosing were consistently observed for vertebral fractures. Conclusion Delayed denosumab dosing, even by 1 to 3 months, was significantly associated with increased fracture risk. Maintaining the correct dosing schedule should be emphasized when starting denosumab.

Background: Inhibitory effects of denosumab on bone remodeling are reversible and disappear once treatment is discontinued. Herein, we examined whether and to what extent delayed denosumab administration is also associated with fracture risk using nation-wide data. Methods: The study cohort included women aged 45 to 89 years who were started on denosumab for osteoporosis between October 2017 and December 2019 using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Participants were stratified according to the time of their subsequent denosumab administration from the last denosumab administration, including those with within 30 days early dosing (ED30), within the planned time of 180–210 days (referent), within 30–90 days of delayed dosing (DD90), within 90–180 days of delayed dosing (DD180), and longer than 181 days of delayed dosing (DD181+). The primary outcome was the incidence of all clinical fractures. Results: A total of 149,199 participants included and 2,323 all clinical fractures (including 1,223 vertebral fractures) occurred. The incidence of all fractures was significantly higher in the DD90 compared to reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4). The risk of all fracture was even higher in the longer delayed DD180 group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) and DD181+ group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2). Increased risks of fractures with delayed dosing were consistently observed for vertebral fractures. Conclusion Delayed denosumab dosing, even by 1 to 3 months, was significantly associated with increased fracture risk. Maintaining the correct dosing schedule should be emphasized when starting denosumab.

Background: Inhibitory effects of denosumab on bone remodeling are reversible and disappear once treatment is discontinued. Herein, we examined whether and to what extent delayed denosumab administration is also associated with fracture risk using nation-wide data. Methods: The study cohort included women aged 45 to 89 years who were started on denosumab for osteoporosis between October 2017 and December 2019 using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Participants were stratified according to the time of their subsequent denosumab administration from the last denosumab administration, including those with within 30 days early dosing (ED30), within the planned time of 180–210 days (referent), within 30–90 days of delayed dosing (DD90), within 90–180 days of delayed dosing (DD180), and longer than 181 days of delayed dosing (DD181+). The primary outcome was the incidence of all clinical fractures. Results: A total of 149,199 participants included and 2,323 all clinical fractures (including 1,223 vertebral fractures) occurred. The incidence of all fractures was significantly higher in the DD90 compared to reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4). The risk of all fracture was even higher in the longer delayed DD180 group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) and DD181+ group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2). Increased risks of fractures with delayed dosing were consistently observed for vertebral fractures. Conclusion Delayed denosumab dosing, even by 1 to 3 months, was significantly associated with increased fracture risk. Maintaining the correct dosing schedule should be emphasized when starting denosumab.