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: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of facilitating target delineation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients undergoing stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for lung tumors by lung expansion and respiratory motion management. Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective single-institutional trial of patients who were diagnosed with either primary lung cancer or lung metastases and received SABR with a dose of 40 to 60 Gy in 4 fractions. Four-dimensional computed tomography simulations were conducted for each patient: once without CPAP and again with CPAP. Results: Thirty-two patients with 39 tumors were analyzed, after the withdrawal of five patients due to discomfort. For 26 tumors separated from the diaphragm, CPAP significantly increased the superoinferior distance between the tumor and the diaphragm (5.96 cm vs. 8.06 cm; p < 0.001). For 13 tumors located adjacent to the diaphragm, CPAP decreased the overlap of planning target volume (PTV) with the diaphragm significantly (6.32 cm3 vs. 4.09 cm3; p = 0.002). PTV showed a significant reduction with CPAP (25.06 cm3 vs. 22.52 cm3, p = 0.017). In dosimetric analyses, CPAP expanded lung volume by 58.4% with a significant reduction in mean dose and V5 to V40. No more than grade 2 adverse events were reported. Conclusion This trial demonstrated significant improvement of CPAP in target delineation uncertainties for lung SABR, with dosimetric benefits, a favorable safety profile and tolerability. Further investigation is warranted to explore the role of CPAP as a novel strategy for respiratory motion management.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of facilitating target delineation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients undergoing stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for lung tumors by lung expansion and respiratory motion management. Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective single-institutional trial of patients who were diagnosed with either primary lung cancer or lung metastases and received SABR with a dose of 40 to 60 Gy in 4 fractions. Four-dimensional computed tomography simulations were conducted for each patient: once without CPAP and again with CPAP. Results: Thirty-two patients with 39 tumors were analyzed, after the withdrawal of five patients due to discomfort. For 26 tumors separated from the diaphragm, CPAP significantly increased the superoinferior distance between the tumor and the diaphragm (5.96 cm vs. 8.06 cm; p < 0.001). For 13 tumors located adjacent to the diaphragm, CPAP decreased the overlap of planning target volume (PTV) with the diaphragm significantly (6.32 cm3 vs. 4.09 cm3; p = 0.002). PTV showed a significant reduction with CPAP (25.06 cm3 vs. 22.52 cm3, p = 0.017). In dosimetric analyses, CPAP expanded lung volume by 58.4% with a significant reduction in mean dose and V5 to V40. No more than grade 2 adverse events were reported. Conclusion This trial demonstrated significant improvement of CPAP in target delineation uncertainties for lung SABR, with dosimetric benefits, a favorable safety profile and tolerability. Further investigation is warranted to explore the role of CPAP as a novel strategy for respiratory motion management.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of facilitating target delineation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients undergoing stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for lung tumors by lung expansion and respiratory motion management. Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective single-institutional trial of patients who were diagnosed with either primary lung cancer or lung metastases and received SABR with a dose of 40 to 60 Gy in 4 fractions. Four-dimensional computed tomography simulations were conducted for each patient: once without CPAP and again with CPAP. Results: Thirty-two patients with 39 tumors were analyzed, after the withdrawal of five patients due to discomfort. For 26 tumors separated from the diaphragm, CPAP significantly increased the superoinferior distance between the tumor and the diaphragm (5.96 cm vs. 8.06 cm; p < 0.001). For 13 tumors located adjacent to the diaphragm, CPAP decreased the overlap of planning target volume (PTV) with the diaphragm significantly (6.32 cm3 vs. 4.09 cm3; p = 0.002). PTV showed a significant reduction with CPAP (25.06 cm3 vs. 22.52 cm3, p = 0.017). In dosimetric analyses, CPAP expanded lung volume by 58.4% with a significant reduction in mean dose and V5 to V40. No more than grade 2 adverse events were reported. Conclusion This trial demonstrated significant improvement of CPAP in target delineation uncertainties for lung SABR, with dosimetric benefits, a favorable safety profile and tolerability. Further investigation is warranted to explore the role of CPAP as a novel strategy for respiratory motion management.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of facilitating target delineation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients undergoing stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for lung tumors by lung expansion and respiratory motion management. Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective single-institutional trial of patients who were diagnosed with either primary lung cancer or lung metastases and received SABR with a dose of 40 to 60 Gy in 4 fractions. Four-dimensional computed tomography simulations were conducted for each patient: once without CPAP and again with CPAP. Results: Thirty-two patients with 39 tumors were analyzed, after the withdrawal of five patients due to discomfort. For 26 tumors separated from the diaphragm, CPAP significantly increased the superoinferior distance between the tumor and the diaphragm (5.96 cm vs. 8.06 cm; p < 0.001). For 13 tumors located adjacent to the diaphragm, CPAP decreased the overlap of planning target volume (PTV) with the diaphragm significantly (6.32 cm3 vs. 4.09 cm3; p = 0.002). PTV showed a significant reduction with CPAP (25.06 cm3 vs. 22.52 cm3, p = 0.017). In dosimetric analyses, CPAP expanded lung volume by 58.4% with a significant reduction in mean dose and V5 to V40. No more than grade 2 adverse events were reported. Conclusion This trial demonstrated significant improvement of CPAP in target delineation uncertainties for lung SABR, with dosimetric benefits, a favorable safety profile and tolerability. Further investigation is warranted to explore the role of CPAP as a novel strategy for respiratory motion management.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of facilitating target delineation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients undergoing stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for lung tumors by lung expansion and respiratory motion management. Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective single-institutional trial of patients who were diagnosed with either primary lung cancer or lung metastases and received SABR with a dose of 40 to 60 Gy in 4 fractions. Four-dimensional computed tomography simulations were conducted for each patient: once without CPAP and again with CPAP. Results: Thirty-two patients with 39 tumors were analyzed, after the withdrawal of five patients due to discomfort. For 26 tumors separated from the diaphragm, CPAP significantly increased the superoinferior distance between the tumor and the diaphragm (5.96 cm vs. 8.06 cm; p < 0.001). For 13 tumors located adjacent to the diaphragm, CPAP decreased the overlap of planning target volume (PTV) with the diaphragm significantly (6.32 cm3 vs. 4.09 cm3; p = 0.002). PTV showed a significant reduction with CPAP (25.06 cm3 vs. 22.52 cm3, p = 0.017). In dosimetric analyses, CPAP expanded lung volume by 58.4% with a significant reduction in mean dose and V5 to V40. No more than grade 2 adverse events were reported. Conclusion This trial demonstrated significant improvement of CPAP in target delineation uncertainties for lung SABR, with dosimetric benefits, a favorable safety profile and tolerability. Further investigation is warranted to explore the role of CPAP as a novel strategy for respiratory motion management.

Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a breast cancer subtype that has poor prognosis and exhibits a unique tumor microenvironment. Analysis of the tumor microbiome has indicated a relationship between the tumor microenvironment and treatment response. Therefore, we attempted to reveal the role of the tumor microbiome in patients with TNBC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: We collected TNBC patient RNA-sequencing samples from the Gene Expression Omnibus and extracted microbiome count data. Differential and relative abundance were estimated with linear discriminant analysis effect size. We calculated the immune cell fraction with CIBERSORTx and conducted survival analysis using the Cancer Genome Atlas patient data. Correlations between the microbiome and immune cell compositions were analyzed and a prediction model was constructed to estimate drug response. Results: Among the pathological complete response group (pCR), the beta diversity varied considerably; consequently, 20 genera and 24 species were observed to express a significant differential and relative abundance. Pandoraea pulmonicola and Brucella melitensis were found to be important features in determining drug response. In correlation analysis, Geosporobacter ferrireducens, Streptococcus sanguinis, and resting natural killer cells were the most correlated factors in the pCR, whereas Nitrosospira briensis, Plantactinospora sp. BC1, and regulatory T cells were key features in the residual disease group. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that the microbiome analysis of tumor tissue can predict chemotherapy response of patients with TNBC. Further, the immunological tumor microenvironment may be impacted by the tumor microbiome, thereby affecting the corresponding survival and treatment response.

Free-living amoebae (FLA) are found in diverse environments, such as soils, rivers, and seas. Hence, they can be used as bioindicators to assess the water quality based solely on their presence. In this study, we determined the presence of FLA in river water by filtering water samples collected from various sites and culturing the resulting filtrates. FLA were detected in all the water samples with varying quality grades (Grades Ι-V). The significant increase in the size of the amoebae population with the deterioration in the water quality. Monoxenic cultures of the amoebae were performed, and genomic DNAs were isolated, among which 18S rDNAs were sequenced to identify the amoeba species. Of the 12 species identified, 10 belonged to the Acanthamoeba genus; of the remaining 2 species, one was identified as Vannella croatica and the other as a species of Vermamoeba. Acanthamoeba was detected in samples with Grades Ι to VI quality, whereas the Vermamoeba species was present only in Grade Ι water. V. croatica was found exclusively in water with Grade ΙΙ quality. Following morphological observations, genomic DNA was sequenced using 16S rDNA to determine whether the species of Acanthamoeba harbored endosymbionts. Most of the isolated Acanthamoeba contained endosymbionts, among which 4 species of endogenous bacteria were identified and examined using transmission electron microscopy. This study provides evidence that the distribution of amoebae other than Acanthamoeba may be associated with water quality. However, further confirmation will be required based on accurate water quality ratings and assessments using a more diverse range of FLA.