Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed. Results: Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240). Conclusions This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.

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.

Background/Aims: Quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) is believed to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes in those with suspected infection. We aimed to evaluate the ability of modified qSOFA (m-qSOFA) to identify high-risk patients among those with acutely deteriorated chronic liver disease (CLD), especially those with acute-onchronic liver failure (ACLF). Methods: We used data from both the Korean Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (KACLiF) and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) cohorts. qSOFA was modified by replacing the Glasgow Coma Scale with hepatic encephalopathy, and an m-qSOFA ≥2 was considered high. Results: Patients with high m-qSOFA had a significantly lower 1-month transplant-free survival (TFS) in both cohorts and higher organ failure development in KACLiF than those with low m-qSOFA (Ps<0.05). Subgroup analysis by ACLF showed that patients with high m-qSOFA had lower TFS than those with low m-qSOFA. m-qSOFA was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratios, HR=2.604, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.353–5.013, P=0.004 in KACLiF and HR=1.904, 95% CI 1.484– 2.442, P<0.001 in AARC). The patients with low m-qSOFA at baseline but high m-qSOFA on day 7 had a significantly lower 1-month TFS than those with high m-qSOFA at baseline but low m-qSOFA on day 7 (52.6% vs. 89.4%, P<0.001 in KACLiF and 26.9% vs. 61.5%, P<0.001 in AARC). Conclusions Baseline and dynamic changes in m-qSOFA may identify patients with a high risk of developing organ failure and short-term mortality among CLD patients with acute deterioration.

Purpose: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) presents a major challenge in the treatment of latestage, solid tumors, with traditional therapies limited by poor drug penetration. We evaluated a novel hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (HPIPAC) system using a human abdominal cavity model for its efficacy against AGS gastric cancer cells. Materials and Methods: A model simulating the human abdominal cavity and AGS gastric cancer cell line cultured dishes were used to assess the efficacy of the HPIPAC system. Cell viability was measured to evaluate the impact of HPIPAC under 6 different conditions: heat alone, PIPAC with paclitaxel (PTX), PTX alone, normal saline (NS) alone, heat with NS, and HPIPAC with PTX. Results: Results showed a significant reduction in cell viability with HPIPAC combined with PTX, indicating enhanced cytotoxic effects. Immediately after treatment, the average cell viability was 66.6%, which decreased to 49.2% after 48 hours and to a further 19.6% after 120 hours of incubation, demonstrating the sustained efficacy of the treatment. In contrast, control groups exhibited a recovery in cell viability; heat alone showed cell viability increasing from 90.8% to 94.4%, PIPAC with PTX from 82.7% to 89.7%, PTX only from 73.3% to 74.8%, NS only from 90.9% to 98.3%, and heat with NS from 74.4% to 84.7%. Conclusions The HPIPAC system with PTX exhibits a promising approach in the treatment of PC in gastric cancer, significantly reducing cell viability. Despite certain limitations, this study highlights the system’s potential to enhance treatment outcomes. Future efforts should focus on refining HPIPAC and validating its effectiveness in clinical settings.

Purpose: The use of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapies has become common. In rare cases, these therapies may increase the risk of dangerous postoperative bleeding. We investigated the association of antiplatelets and/or anticoagulants with postoperative major bleeding risk in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 3,663 gastric cancer patients (antiplatelet/anticoagulant group, 518; control group, 3,145) who had undergone laparoscopic surgery between January 2012 and December 2017. To minimize selection bias, 508 patients in each group were matched using propensity score matching (PSM) method. The primary outcome was postoperative major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative, postoperative transfusion and early complications. Results: After PSM, postoperative major bleeding occurred in 10 (2.0%) and 3 cases (0.6%) in the antiplatelets/ anticoagulants and control groups, respectively (P = 0.090). Intraoperative and postoperative transfusions were not significantly different between 2 groups (2.4% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.355 and 5.5% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.469). Early complications developed in 58 (11.4%) and 43 patients (8.5%) in the antiplatelets/anticoagulants and control groups, respectively (P = 0.142). The mean amounts of intraoperative and postoperative transfusions were not significantly different between the groups (366.67 ± 238.68 mL vs. 371.43 ± 138.01 mL, P = 0.962; 728.57 ± 642.25 mL vs. 508.09 ± 468.95 mL, P = 0.185). In multivariable analysis, male (P = 0.008) and advanced stage (III, IV) (P = 0.024) were independent significant risk factors for postoperative major bleeding. Conclusion Preoperative antiplatelets and/or anticoagulants administration did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative major bleeding after laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.

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.

Purpose: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system, positive peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) indicates stage IV gastric cancer. However, rapid intraoperative diagnosis of PWC has no established reliable method. This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Shorr and the modified ultrafast Papanicolaou (MUFP) methods for intraoperative PWC. Materials and Methods: This study included patients with gastric cancer who were clinically diagnosed with stage cT3 or higher. The Shorr and MUFP methods were performed on all PWC specimens, and the results were compared with those of conventional Papanicolaou (PAP) staining with carcinoembryonic antigen immunohistochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and partial likelihood tests were used to compare the 2 methods. Results: Forty patients underwent intraoperative PWC between November 2019 and August 2021. The average time between specimen reception and slide preparation using Shorr and MUFP methods was 44.4±4.5 minutes, and the average time between specimen reception and pathologic diagnosis was 53.9±8.9 minutes. Eight patients (20.0%) had positive cytology in PAP staining. The Shorr method had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 93.8%; the MUFP method had 62.5% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity. The area under the curve was 0.844 for Shorr and 0.813 for MUFP. In comparing the C-indices of each method with overall survival, no difference was found among the Shorr, MUFP, and conventional PAP methods. Conclusions The Shorr and MUFP methods are acceptable for the intraoperative diagnosis of PWC in advanced gastric cancer.