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.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Background/Aims: Achieving rapid reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels below 55 mg/dL in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) can be challenging with statins alone. This single-center, retrospective study aimed to assess the impact of single-dose injection of evolocumab 140 mg on LDL-C levels during the peri-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) period in patients with AMI. Methods: A total of 95 patients with AMI who underwent PCI were divided into the evolocumab (n = 50) and non-evolocumab (n = 45) groups. Results: The percentage change of LDL-C level at 1–3 weeks from baseline was 78.4 ± 13.4% reduction in the evolocumab group versus 45.6 ± 22.6% in the non-evolocumab group, with a mean difference of -33.5% between the groups (95% CI: -42.6 to -24.5%; p < 0.001). The achievement rate of LDL-C levels below 55 mg/dL at 1–3 weeks was significantly higher in the evolocumab group than in the non-evolocumab group (97.7% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Patients with AMI who received single-dose injection of evolocumab 140 mg during the peri-PCI period had a significantly greater LDL-C reduction and higher proportion of patients achieved the target LDL-C level in the early phase AMI than those who did not receive evolocumab.

Purpose: We investigated the consistent efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim, a novel long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), in Koreans and Asians compared with the pooled population of two global phase 3 trials. Materials and Methods: Two phase 3 trials (ADVANCE and RECOVER) evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose eflapegrastim (13.2 mg/0.6 mL [3.6 mg G-CSF equivalent]) compared to pegfilgrastim (6 mg based on G-CSF) in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1, in Korean and Asian subpopulations. Results: Among a total of 643 patients randomized to eflapegrastim (n=314) or pegfilgrastim (n=329), 54 Asians (29 to eflapegrastim and 25 to pegfilgrastim) including 28 Koreans (14 to both eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim) were enrolled. The primary endpoint, DSN in cycle 1 in the eflapegrastim arm was non-inferior to the pegfilgrastim arm in Koreans and Asians. The DSN difference between the eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim arms was consistent across populations: –0.120 days (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.227 to –0.016), –0.288 (95% CI, –0.714 to 0.143), and –0.267 (95% CI, –0.697 to 0.110) for pooled population, Koreans and Asians, respectively. There were few treatment-related adverse events that caused discontinuation of eflapegrastim (1.9%) or pegfilgrastim (1.5%) in total and no notable trends or differences across patient populations. Conclusion This study may suggest that eflapegrastim showed non-inferior efficacy and similar safety compared to pegfilgrastim in Koreans and Asians, consistently with those of pooled population.