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.

Purpose: T1 high grade (T1HG) bladder cancer (BC) is a type of non-muscle invasive BC (NMIBC) that is recognized as an aggressive subtype with a heightened propensity for progression. Current risk stratification methods for NMIBC rely on clinicopathological indicators; however, these approaches do not adequately capture the aggressive nature of T1HG BC. Thus, new, more accurate biomarkers for T1HG risk stratification are needed. Here, we enrolled three different patient cohorts and investigated expression of collagen type VI alpha 1 (COL6A1), a key component of the extracellular matrix, at different stages and grades of BC, with a specific focus on T1HG BC. Materials and Methods: Samples from 298 BC patients were subjected to RNA sequencing and real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results: We found that T1HG BC and muscle invasive BC (MIBC) exhibited comparable expression of COL6A1, which was significantly higher than that by other NMIBC subtypes. In particular, T1HG patients who later progressed to MIBC had considerably higher expression of COL6A1 than Ta, T1 low grade patients, and patients that did not progress, highlighting the aggressive nature and higher risk of progression associated with T1HG BC. Moreover, Cox and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses revealed a significant association between elevated expression of COL6A1 and poor progression-free survival of T1HG BC patients (multivariate Cox hazard ratio, 16.812; 95% confidence interval, 3.283–86.095; p=0.001 and p=0.0002 [log-rank test]). Conclusions These findings suggest that COL6A1 may be a promising biomarker for risk stratification of T1HG BC, offering valuable insight into disease prognosis and guidance of personalized treatment decisions.

Purpose: In the present study, we determined the prevalence of obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), hyposecretory MGD, grossly normal MG, and hypersecretory MGD in patients with dry eye syndrome using lipid layer thickness (LLT) and MG dropout. Methods: Eighty-eight patients with dry eye syndrome were included in the study. Patients were categorized into four groups according to the LLT and weighted total meiboscore. The proportion of patients in each group was calculated. The age, sex, Ocular Surface Disease Index, LLT, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, cornea stain, weighted total meiboscore, expressibility, and quality of meibum were compared between the four groups. Results: Fifteen eyes (17.0%) had obstructive MGD, two eyes (2.3%) had hyposecretory MGD, 40 eyes (45.5%) had grossly normal MG, and 17 eyes (19.3%) had hypersecretory MGD. The obstructive MGD group was younger than the grossly normal MG group. In obstructive MGD, the ratio of men to women was higher than that of the other groups. However, Ocular Surface Disease Index, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, and corneal stain did not show statistically significant differences between the four groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was worse than those of the other groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was poor than those of the obstructive and hypersecretory MGD group. Conclusions This categorization was expected to help determine the best treatment method for dry eye syndrome, according to the MG status.

Objective: To develop and validate a preoperative risk score incorporating carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CT, and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18F-FDG) PET/CT variables to predict recurrence-free survival (RFS) after upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Materials and Methods: Patients with resectable PDAC who underwent upfront surgery between 2014 and 2017 (development set) or between 2018 and 2019 (test set) were retrospectively evaluated. In the development set, a risk-scoring system was developed using the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, including variables associated with RFS. In the test set, the performance of the risk score was evaluated using the Harrell C-index and compared with that of the postoperative pathological tumor stage. Results: A total of 529 patients, including 335 (198 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 64 ± 9 years) and 194 (103 male; mean age, 66 ± 9 years) patients in the development and test sets, respectively, were evaluated. The risk score included five variables predicting RFS: tumor size (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29 per 1 cm increment; P < 0.001), maximal standardized uptake values of tumor ≥ 5.2 (HR, 1.29; P = 0.06), suspicious regional lymph nodes (HR, 1.43; P = 0.02), possible distant metastasis on 18F-FDG PET/CT (HR, 2.32; P = 0.03), and CA 19-9 (HR, 1.02 per 100 U/mL increment; P = 0.002). In the test set, the risk score showed good performance in predicting RFS (C-index, 0.61), similar to that of the pathologic tumor stage (C-index, 0.64; P = 0.17). Conclusion The proposed risk score based on preoperative CA 19-9, CT, and 18F-FDG PET/CT variables may have clinical utility in selecting high-risk patients with resectable PDAC.

Most cases of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) occur without a specific identifiable cause, although vascular factors may serve as potential etiological contributors. Silent infarction refers to ischemic changes observed on imaging studies without accompanying clinical symptoms; however, this condition is clinically significant owing to the increased risk of future stroke. We report a case of left-sided SSNHL accompanied by dizziness in a 62-year-old male patient who was diagnosed with left pontine infarction without any other neurological symptoms. The cochlea and pons receive blood supply from the anterior inferior cerebellar artery; the cochlea lacks collateral vessels and is therefore susceptible to fluctuations in blood flow. This case report provides evidence to support the vascular hypothesis as the etiology underlying SSNHL

Purpose: Oxaliplatin, a component of the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) regimen, has a more favorable toxicity profile than cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). However, oxaliplatin can induce sensory neuropathy and cumulative, dose-related toxicities. Thus, the capecitabine maintenance regimen may achieve the maximum treatment effect while reducing the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with advanced GC between capecitabine maintenance and observation after 1st line XELOX chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients treated with six cycles of XELOX for advanced GC in six hospitals of the Catholic University of Korea were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine maintenance or observation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed using a two-sided log-rank test stratified at a 5% significance level. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 32 and 31 patients were randomized into the maintenance and observation groups, respectively. After randomization, the median number of capecitabine maintenance cycles was 6. The PFS was significantly higher in the maintenance group than the observation group (6.3 vs. 4.1 months, P=0.010). Overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (18.2 vs. 16.5 months, P=0.624). Toxicities, such as hand-foot syndrome, were reported in some maintenance group patients. Maintenance treatment was a significant factor associated with PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.250–0.890; P=0.020). Conclusions After 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy, capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged PFS compared with observation, and toxicity was manageable. Maintenance treatment was a significant prognostic factor associated with PFS.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the use of active surgical co-management (SCM) by medical hospitalists for urology inpatient care. Materials and Methods: Since March 2019, a hospitalist-SCM program was implemented at a tertiary-care medical center, and a retrospective cohort study was conducted among co-managed urology inpatients. We assessed the clinical outcomes of urology inpatients who received SCM and compared passive SCM (co-management of patients by hospitalists only on request; March 2019 to June 2020) with active SCM (co-management of patients based on active screening by hospitalists; July 2020 to October 2021). We also evaluated the perceptions of patients who received SCM toward inpatient care quality, safety, and subjective satisfaction with inpatient care at discharge or when transferred to other wards. Results: We assessed 525 patients. Compared with the passive SCM group (n=205), patients in the active SCM group (n=320) required co-management for a significantly shorter duration (p=0.012) and tended to have a shorter length of stay at the urology ward (p=0.062) and less frequent unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge (p=0.095) while triggering significantly fewer events of rapid response team activation (p=0.002). No differences were found in the proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality rates, or inpatient care questionnaire scores. Conclusion Active surveillance and co-management of urology inpatients by medical hospitalists can improve the quality and efficacy of inpatient care without compromising subjective inpatient satisfaction.

Background and Objectives: Dizziness has diverse underlying causes, so the diagnosis is challenging especially in the emergency room. The aim of this study is to identify clinical characteristics of patients’ complaints of dizziness in the emergency room.Subjects and Method We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 10367 patients who visited the emergency room with the chief complaint of dizziness from January 2016 to December 2020. Patients’ clinical information including age, sex, final diagnoses, consulting departments, treatment results and seasonal incidences were thoroughly assessed. Results: Of the total patients who visited the emergency room, 4.64% complained of dizziness. The mean age of patients was 57.6 years old. The most common age group was over 70’s (28.1%). There were 6322 (61.1%) female patients, while 4035 (38.9%) were male patients. Nearly half 4932 (47.6%) of the patients were managed by the emergency department, followed by 3204, who were managed by the department of otolaryngorhinology (30.9%), and 1166 (11.2%) managed by the neurology department. The dizziness was classified as peripheral vertigo (33.8%), nonspecific dizziness (27.4%), medical conditions (13.9%), central dizziness (11.0%), cardiac dizziness (6.2%), and other miscellaneous causes of trauma, neoplasm and psychogenic causes (7.7%). In peripheral vertigo, the incidence of BPPV, vestibular neuritis and Meniere’s disease were 23.5%, 8.8% and 0.6%, respectively. Conclusion Peripheral vertigo accounted for the majority for the patients with chief complaints of dizziness in the emergency room. As diverse medical conditions may cause dizziness, specialized departments have to be involved in the diagnostic process of dizziness.