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.

Background: Exhaled condensates contain inflammatory biomarkers; however, their roles in the clinical field have been under-investigated. Methods: We prospectively enrolled subjects admitted to pulmonology clinics. We collected exhaled breath condensates (EBC) and analysed the levels of six and 12 biomarkers using conventional and multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. Results: Among the 123 subjects, healthy controls constituted the largest group (81 participants; 65.9%), followed by the preserved ratio impaired spirometry group (21 patients; 17.1%) and the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) group (21 patients; 17.1%). In COPD patients, platelet derived growth factor-AA exhibited strong positive correlations with COPD assessment test (ρ=0.5926, p=0.0423) and COPD-specific version of St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C) score (total, ρ=0.6725, p=0.0166; activity, ρ=0.7176, p=0.0086; and impacts, ρ=0.6151, p=0.0333). Granzyme B showed strong positive correlations with SGRQ-C score (symptoms, ρ=0.6078, p=0.0360; and impacts, ρ=0.6007, p=0.0389). Interleukin 6 exhibited a strong positive correlation with SGRQ-C score (activity, ρ=0.4671, p=0.0378). The absolute serum eosinophil and basophil counts showed positive correlations with pro-collagen I alpha 1 (ρ=0.6735, p=0.0164 and ρ=0.6295, p=0.0283, respectively). In healthy subjects, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity demonstrated significant correlation with CC chemokine ligand 3 (CCL3)/macrophage inflammatory protein 1 alpha (ρ=0.3897 and p=0.0068). FEV1 exhibited significant correlation with CCL11/eotaxin (ρ=0.4445 and p=0.0017). Conclusion Inflammatory biomarkers in EBC might be useful to predict quality of life concerning respiratory symptoms and serologic markers. Further studies are needed.

Purpose: The treatment of male breast cancer (MBC) has been extrapolated from female breast cancer (FBC) because of its rarity despite their different clinicopathologic characteristics. We aimed to investigate the distribution of intrinsic subtypes based on immunohistochemistry, their clinical impact, and treatment pattern in clinical practice through a multicenter study in Korea. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 248 MBC patients from 18 institutions across the country from January 1995 to July 2016. Results: The median age of MBC patients was 63 years (range, 25 to 102 years). Among 148 intrinsic subtype classified patients, 61 (41.2%), 44 (29.7%), 29 (19.5%), and 14 (9.5%) were luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and triple-negative breast cancer, respectively. Luminal A subtype showed trends for superior survival compared to other subtypes. Most hormone receptor-positive patients (166 patients, 82.6%) received adjuvant endocrine treatment. Five-year completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with superior disease-free survival (DFS) in patients classified with an intrinsic subtype (hazard ratio [HR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.49; p=0.002) and in all patients (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; p=0.003). Conclusion Distribution of subtypes of MBC was similar to FBC and luminal type A was most common. Overall survival tended to be improved for luminal A subtype, although there was no statistical significance. Completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with prolonged DFS in intrinsic subtype classified patients. MBC patients tended to receive less treatment. MBC patients should receive standard treatment according to guidelines as FBC patients.

Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Korea, need remains for pangenotypic regimens that can be used in the presence of hepatic impairment, comorbidities, or prior treatment failure. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir for 12 weeks in HCV-infected Korean adults. Methods: This Phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study included 2 cohorts. In Cohort 1, participants with HCV genotype 1 or 2 and who were treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with interferon-based treatments, received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir 400/100 mg/day. In Cohort 2, HCV genotype 1 infected individuals who previously received an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen ≥ 4 weeks received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir 400/100/100 mg/day. Decompensated cirrhosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary endpoint was SVR12, defined as HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL 12 weeks following treatment. Results: Of 53 participants receiving sofosbuvir–velpatasvir, 52 (98.1%) achieved SVR12. The single participant who did not achieve SVR12 experienced an asymptomatic Grade 3 ASL/ALT elevation on day 15 and discontinued treatment. The event resolved without intervention. All 33 participants (100%) treated with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir achieved SVR 12. Overall, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir were safe and well tolerated. Three participants (5.6%) in Cohort 1 and 1 participant (3.0%) in Cohort 2 had serious adverse events, but none were considered treatment-related. No deaths or grade 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir or sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir was safe and resulted in high SVR12 rates in Korean HCV patients.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficiency of the pediatric emergency ward (PEW) through the outcomes of children hospitalized to the ward by the department of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). Methods: A chart review was completed for children (< 15 years) who were hospitalized to the PEW via the pediatric emergency center from March through May 2021. We compared the general characteristics and details regarding the outcomes depending on the departments they were hospitalized to, namely PEM, pediatrics (PED), and others. Results: We analyzed a total of 606 hospitalized children: PEM, 91; PED, 456; and others, 59. In the order listed above, their median ages were 2 years (interquartile range, 1-6), 1 year (0-4), and 9 years (7-14) (P < 0.001). The numbers of children with Korean Triage and Acuity Scale of 1-3 were 71 (78.0%), 400 (87.7%), and 33 (55.9%) (P < 0.001). Median length of stay (LOS) in the emergency department (ED) and hospital tended to be shorter in PEM (ED LOS: PEM, 4.3 hours vs. PED and others, 4.0-6.3 hours; hospital LOS: PEM, 19.0 hours vs. PED and others, 58.5-63.8 hours; all Ps < 0.001). The differences in the LOS were prominent between others and PEM (ED LOS, 1.538 [95% confidence interval, 1.353-1.749]; hospital LOS, 3.375 [2.741-4.157]). Transfers to other departments occurred only in PEM (4.4%) and PED (3.9%) whereas intensive care was performed only in others (27.1%). Return visits showed no difference among the 3 departments. Top 5 chief complaints and primary diagnoses of the children hospitalized to PEM were vomiting, fever, abdominal pain, head injury, and poisoning, and gastroenteritis, concussion, syncope, poisoning, and upper respiratory infection, respectively. Conclusion Hospitalization to PEWs for short-term treatment or observation may relieve overcrowding in EDs or in hospitals, with comparable frequency of return visits.

Objective: Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage is a serious type of stroke with high mortality and disability rates. Surgical treatment options vary; however, predicting edema aggravation is crucial when choosing the optimal approach. We propose using the sphericity index, a measure of roundness, to predict the aggravation of edema and guide surgical decisions. Methods: We analyzed 56 cases of craniotomy and hematoma evacuation to investigate the correlation between the sphericity index and patient outcomes, including the need for salvage decompressive craniectomy (DC). Results: The patients included 35 (62.5%) men and 21 (37.5%) women, with a median age of 62.5 years. The basal ganglia was the most common location of hemorrhage (50.0%). The mean hematoma volume was 86.3 cc, with 10 (17.9%) instances of hematoma expansion.Cerebral herniation was observed in 44 (78.6%) patients, intraventricular hemorrhage in 34 (60.7%), and spot signs in 9 (16.1%). Salvage DC was performed in 13 (23.6%) patients to relieve intracranial pressure. The median follow-up duration was 6 months, with a mortality rate of 12.5%. The sphericity index was significantly correlated with delayed swelling and hematoma expansion but not salvage DC. Conclusions The sphericity index is a promising predictor of delayed swelling and hematoma expansion that may aid in the development of surgical guidelines and medication strategies. Further large-scale studies are required to explore these aspects and establish comprehensive guidelines.

Purpose: To establish a prospective registry for the active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PC) using the Korean Urological Oncology Society (KUOS) database and to present interim analysis. Materials and Methods: The KUOS registry of AS for PC (KUOS-AS-PC) was organized in May 2019 and comprises multiple institutions nationwide. The eligibility criteria were as follows: patients with (1) pathologically proven PC; (2) pre-biopsy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20 ng/mL; (3) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 or 2 (no cribriform pattern 4); (4) clinical T stage ≤T2c; (5) positive core ratio ≤50%; and (6) maximal cancer involvement in the core ≤50%.Detailed longitudinal clinical information, including multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and disease-specific outcomes, was recorded. Results: From May 2019 to June 2021, 296 patients were enrolled, and 284 were analyzed. The mean±standard deviation (SD) age at enrollment was 68.7±8.2 years. The median follow-up period was 11.2 months (5.9–16.8 mo). Majority of patients had pre-biopsy PSA ≤10 ng/mL (91.2%), PSA density <0.2 ng/mL 2 (79.7%), ISUP grade group 1 (94.4%), single positive core (65.7%), maximal cancer involvement in the core ≤20% (78.1%), and clinical T stage of T1c or lower (72.9%). Fifty-two (18.3%) discontinued AS for various reasons. Interventions included radical prostatectomy (80.8%), transurethral prostatectomy (5.8%), primary androgen deprivation therapy (5.8%), radiation (5.8%), and focal therapy (1.9%). The mean±SD time to intervention was 8.9±5.2 months. The reasons for discontinuation included pathologic reclassification (59.6%), patient preference (25.0%), and radiologic reclassification (9.6%). Two (4.8%) patients with pathologic Gleason score upgraded to ISUP grade group 4, no biochemical recurrence. Conclusions The KUOS established a successful prospective database of PC patients undergoing AS in Korea, named the KUOS-AS-PC registry.

Objectives: ：In this study, socio-demographic, drinking and emotional characteristics, and their correlations were compared among patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) according to the presence or absence of any type of criminal record. Methods: ：Among patients admitted to the hospital with AUD, 27 with and 31 without criminal records were included. Socio-demographic data and drinking characteristics such as first drinking age, average daily alcohol consumption were collected. In addition, the severity of alcohol problems, the degree of change readiness for drinking alcohol, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and impulsivity were evaluated using scales and statistically analyzed. Pearson’s correlation test was applied to reveal the differences in correlation of the characteristics according to the presence or absence of criminal records. Results: ：The first drinking age was significantly earlier in the AUD group with criminal records. Interestingly, the degree of change readiness regarding alcohol problem as shown in SOCRATES-K was significantly higher in the AUD group with criminal records. Anxiety symptoms were statistically significantly higher in the AUD group with criminal records. In AUD with criminal records, first drinking age negatively correlated with the degree of change readiness. In AUD without criminal records, first drinking age correlated negatively with the severity of alcohol problem, and the degree of change readiness, and the degree of change readiness negatively with age, and the degree of change readiness positively with the severity of alcohol problem. In Both groups, anxiety symptoms positively correlated with depressive symptoms. Conclusions ：This study showed that AUD patients with criminal record had a faster first drinking age and the higher degree of change readiness regarding alcohol problem. Significantly higher symptoms of anxiety were also presented in AUD patients with criminal record than AUD patients who have no criminal records. Some differences were identified in correlations among characteristics between the two groups.