Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

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.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

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.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

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/Aims: Besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) have been recently approved in Korea as the initial antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis B (CHB).However, the real-world outcome data for these drugs remain limited. Therefore, we conducted a noninferiority analysis using real-world data to compare the clinical outcomes of the two nucleotide analogs in treatment-naïve patients with CHB. Methods: We retrospectively investigated a cohort of patients with CHB who received BSV or TAF as first-line antiviral agents. The endpoints were virological response (VR) and liver-related clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 537 patients, consisting of 202 and 335 patients administered BSV and TAF, respectively, were followed up for 42 months. No significant difference was observed between the VRs of the patients from the two groups. The rates of biochemical response, virologic breakthrough, and incidence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma did not differ between the groups. However, the hepatitis B e antigen seroclearance rate was higher and the renal function declined less in the BSV group. Multivariable analysis indicated older age, alcohol abuse, cirrhosis and ascites, and lower serum HBV DNA level to be independently associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma risk. The 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis with 400 patients showed VR rates of 85.0% and 88.7% in the BSV and TAF group patients, respectively, at 2 years. The absolute value of the 95% confidence interval for the difference (–0.04 to 0.12) satisfied the a priori limit of a noninferiority of 0.15. Conclusions BSV is noninferior to TAF in terms of VR, and their clinical outcomes are comparable to CHB.