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.

The spleen is occasionally referred to as the ‘forgotten organ’ because splenic lesions are less common and encountered rarely compared to pathologies of other abdominal solid organs. Therefore, although well-demonstrated using various abdominal imaging modalities, radiologists tend to be less familiar with splenic diseases, making interpretation challenging. This study aimed to review common and uncommon splenic diseases and illustrate the multimodal imaging (including ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and PET/CT) features of these lesions in correlation with their histopathology. Recognizing the radiological findings of various splenic lesions helps narrow down the differential diagnosis and guide appropriate clinical decision-making for radiologists.

The spleen is occasionally referred to as the ‘forgotten organ’ because splenic lesions are less common and encountered rarely compared to pathologies of other abdominal solid organs. Therefore, although well-demonstrated using various abdominal imaging modalities, radiologists tend to be less familiar with splenic diseases, making interpretation challenging. This study aimed to review common and uncommon splenic diseases and illustrate the multimodal imaging (including ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and PET/CT) features of these lesions in correlation with their histopathology. Recognizing the radiological findings of various splenic lesions helps narrow down the differential diagnosis and guide appropriate clinical decision-making for radiologists.

The spleen is occasionally referred to as the ‘forgotten organ’ because splenic lesions are less common and encountered rarely compared to pathologies of other abdominal solid organs. Therefore, although well-demonstrated using various abdominal imaging modalities, radiologists tend to be less familiar with splenic diseases, making interpretation challenging. This study aimed to review common and uncommon splenic diseases and illustrate the multimodal imaging (including ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and PET/CT) features of these lesions in correlation with their histopathology. Recognizing the radiological findings of various splenic lesions helps narrow down the differential diagnosis and guide appropriate clinical decision-making for radiologists.

Purpose: The female sex is reported to have a higher risk of adverse events (AEs) from cytotoxic chemotherapy. Few studies examined the sex differences in AEs and their impact on the use of medical services during adjuvant chemotherapy. This sub-study aimed to compare the incidence of any grade and grade ≥ 3 AEs, healthcare utilization, chemotherapy completion rate, and dose intensity according to sex. Materials and Methods: This is a sub-study of a multicenter cohort conducted in Korea that evaluated the impact of healthcare reimbursement on AE evaluation in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy between September 2013 and December 2016 at four hospitals in Korea. Results: A total of 1,170 patients with colorectal, gastric, or non–small cell lung cancer were included in the study. Female patients were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and experienced less postoperative weight loss of > 10%. Females had significantly higher rates of any grade AEs including nausea, abdominal pain, stomatitis, vomiting, and neutropenia, and experienced more grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting. The dose intensity of chemotherapy was significantly lower in females, and they also experienced more frequent dose reduction after the first cycle. Moreover, female patients receiving platinum-containing regimens had significantly higher rates of unscheduled outpatient visits. Conclusion Our study found that females experienced a higher incidence of multiple any-grade AEs and severe neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting, across various cancer types, leading to more frequent dose reductions. Physicians should be aware of sex differences in AEs for chemotherapy decisions.

Purpose: : This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of end-of-life care debriefing as an intervention to reduce moral distress among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses after end-of-life care. Methods: : This quasiexperimental study included 104 nurses (46 in the control group and 58 in the intervention group) working in three medical ICUs and two surgical ICUs. The data collection period was from September 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018, and end-of-life care debriefing in the intervention group was implemented over three months. Debriefings were conducted in groups or individually, with eight people participating in three or more debriefings. Comparisons of end-of-life care stress, end-of-life care attitudes, and wellness between the two groups were performed using an ANCOVA. Satisfaction with the debriefing was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: : End-of-life care stress and wellness did not differ between the groups, but there was a significant difference in end-of-life care attitudes. Overall, 50% of the participants were satisfied with the debriefing. Conclusion : Based on the finding that end-of-life care debriefing has a positive impact on ICU nurses’ attitudes toward end-of-life care, it can be used as an effective measure to reduce nurses’ moral distress. An institutional debriefing system should be established and operationalized.

Background: Since the emergence of hypervirulent strains of Clostridioides difficile, the incidence of C. difficile infections (CDI) has increased significantly. Methods: To assess the incidence of CDI in Korea, we conducted a prospective multicentre observational study from October 2020 to October 2021. Additionally, we calculated the incidence of CDI from mass data obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) from 2008 to 2020. Results: In the prospective study with active surveillance, 30,212 patients had diarrhoea and 907 patients were diagnosed with CDI over 1,288,571 patient-days and 193,264 admissions in 18 participating hospitals during 3 months of study period; the CDI per 10,000 patientdays was 7.04 and the CDI per 1,000 admission was 4.69. The incidence of CDI was higher in general hospitals than in tertiary hospitals: 6.38 per 10,000 patient-days (range: 3.25–12.05) and 4.18 per 1,000 admissions (range: 1.92–8.59) in 11 tertiary hospitals, vs. 9.45 per 10,000 patient-days (range: 5.68–13.90) and 6.73 per 1,000 admissions (range: 3.18–15.85) in seven general hospitals. With regard to HIRA data, the incidence of CDI in all hospitals has been increasing over the 13-year-period: from 0.3 to 1.8 per 10,000 patient-days, 0.3 to 1.6 per 1,000 admissions, and 6.9 to 56.9 per 100,000 population, respectively. Conclusion The incidence of CDI in Korea has been gradually increasing, and its recent value is as high as that in the United State and Europe. CDI is underestimated, particularly in general hospitals in Korea.

Vancomycin is a frequently used antibiotic in intensive care units, and the patient’s renal clearance affects the pharmacokinetic characteristics of vancomycin. Several advantages have been reported for vancomycin continuous intravenous infusion, but studies on continuous dosing regimens based on patients’ renal clearance are insufficient. The aim of this study was to develop a vancomycin serum concentration prediction model by factoring in a patient’s renal clearance. Children admitted to our institution between July 1, 2021, and July 31, 2022 with records of continuous infusion of vancomycin were included in the study. Sex, age, height, weight, vancomycin dose by weight, interval from the start of vancomycin administration to the time of therapeutic drug monitoring sampling, and vancomycin serum concentrations were analyzed with the linear regression analysis of the mixed effect model. Univariable regression analysis was performed using the vancomycin serum concentration as a dependent variable. It showed that vancomycin dose (p < 0.001) and serum creatinine (p = 0.007) were factors that had the most impact on vancomycin serum concentration. Vancomycin serum concentration was affected by vancomycin dose (p < 0.001) and serum creatinine (p = 0.001) with statistical significance, and a multivariable regression model was obtained as follows: Vancomycin serum concentration (mg/l) = –1.296 + 0.281 × vancomycin dose (mg/kg) + 20.458 × serum creatinine (mg/dl) (adjusted coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.66). This prediction model is expected to contribute to establishing an optimal continuous infusion regimen for vancomycin.