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.

Background: Over the last decade, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in critically ill children has increased and is associated with favorable outcomes. Our study aims to evaluate the current status of pediatric ECMO in Korea, with a specific focus on its volume and changes in survival rates based on diagnostic indications. Methods: This multicenter study retrospectively analyzed the indications and outcomes of pediatric ECMO over 10 years in patients at 14 hospitals in Korea from January 2012 to December 2021. Four diagnostic categories (neonatal respiratory, pediatric respiratory, postcardiotomy, and cardiac-medical) and trends were compared between periods 1 (2012–2016) and 2 (2017–2021). Results: Overall, 1065 ECMO runs were performed on 1032 patients, with the annual number of cases remaining unchanged over the 10 years. ECMO was most frequently used for post-cardiotomy (42.4%), cardiac-medical (31.8%), pediatric respiratory (17.5%), and neonatal respiratory (8.2%) cases. A 3.7% increase and 6.1% decrease in pediatric respiratory and post-cardiotomy cases, respectively, were noted between periods 1 and 2.Among the four groups, the cardiac-medical group had the highest survival rate (51.2%), followed by the pediatric respiratory (46.4%), post-cardiotomy (36.5%), and neonatal respiratory (29.4%) groups. A consistent improvement was noted in patient survival over the 10 years, with a significant increase between the two periods from 38.2% to 47.1% (P = 0.004). Improvement in survival was evident in post-cardiotomy cases (30–45%, P = 0.002).Significant associations with mortality were observed in neonates, patients requiring dialysis, and those treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P < 0.001). In pediatric respiratory ECMO, immunocompromised patients also showed a significant correlation with mortality (P < 0.001). Conclusion Pediatric ECMO demonstrated a steady increase in overall survival in Korea;however, further efforts are needed since the outcomes remain suboptimal compared with global outcomes.

Purpose: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia may not be a single disease entity. Early-onset AD (EOAD) and late-onset AD (LOAD) have been united under the same eponym of AD until now, but disentangling the heterogeneity according to the age of sonset has been a major tenet in the field of AD research. Materials and Methods: Ninety-nine patients with AD (EOAD, n=54; LOAD, n=45) and 66 cognitively normal controls completed both [18F]THK5351 and [18F]flutemetamol (FLUTE) positron emission tomography scans along with structural magnetic resonance imaging and detailed neuropsychological tests. Results: EOAD patients had higher THK retention in the precuneus, parietal, and frontal lobe, while LOAD patients had higher THK retention in the medial temporal lobe. Intravoxel correlation analyses revealed that EOAD presented narrower territory of local FLUTE-THK correlation, while LOAD presented broader territory of correlation extending to overall parieto-occipito-temporal regions. EOAD patients had broader brain areas which showed significant negative correlations between cortical thickness and THK retention, whereas in LOAD, only limited brain areas showed significant correlation with THK retention. In EOAD, most of the cognitive test results were correlated with THK retention. However, a few cognitive test results were correlated with THK retention in LOAD. Conclusion LOAD seemed to show gradual increase in tau and amyloid, and those two pathologies have association to each other. On the other hand, in EOAD, tau and amyloid may develop more abruptly and independently. These findings suggest LOAD and EOAD may have different courses of pathomechanism.

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.

The mutational and epigenetic landscape of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has become increasingly well understood in recent years, informing on biological targets for precision medicine. Among the most notable findings was the recognition of mutational hot-spots in the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes. In this review, we provide an overview on the IDH1/2 mutation landscape in Korean AML patients, and compare it with available public data. We also discuss the role of IDH1/2 mutations as biomarkers and drug targets.Taken together, occurrence of IDH1/2 mutations is becoming increasingly important in AML treatment, thus requiring thorough examination and follow-up throughout the clinical course of the disease.

Purpose: Diagnostic biomarkers of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have been used for early detection to reduce its dismal survival rate. However, clinically feasible biomarkers are still rare. Therefore, in this study, we developed an automated multi-marker enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit using 3 biomarkers (leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein [LRG1], transthyretin [TTR], and CA 19-9) that were previously discovered and proposed a diagnostic model for PDAC based on this kit for clinical usage. Methods: Individual LRG1, TTR, and CA 19-9 panels were combined into a single automated ELISA panel and tested on 728 plasma samples, including PDAC (n = 381) and normal samples (n = 347). The consistency between individual panels of 3 biomarkers and the automated multi-panel ELISA kit were accessed by correlation. The diagnostic model was developed using logistic regression according to the automated ELISA kit to predict the risk of pancreatic cancer (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups). Results: The Pearson correlation coefficient of predicted values between the triple-marker automated ELISA panel and the former individual ELISA was 0.865. The proposed model provided reliable prediction results with a positive predictive value of 92.05%, negative predictive value of 90.69%, specificity of 90.69%, and sensitivity of 92.05%, which all simultaneously exceed 90% cutoff value. Conclusion This diagnostic model based on the triple ELISA kit showed better diagnostic performance than previous markers for PDAC. In the future, it needs external validation to be used in the clinic.