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: The female sex is reported to have a higher risk of adverse events (AEs) from cytotoxic chemotherapy. Few studies examined the sex differences in AEs and their impact on the use of medical services during adjuvant chemotherapy. This sub-study aimed to compare the incidence of any grade and grade ≥ 3 AEs, healthcare utilization, chemotherapy completion rate, and dose intensity according to sex. Materials and Methods: This is a sub-study of a multicenter cohort conducted in Korea that evaluated the impact of healthcare reimbursement on AE evaluation in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy between September 2013 and December 2016 at four hospitals in Korea. Results: A total of 1,170 patients with colorectal, gastric, or non–small cell lung cancer were included in the study. Female patients were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and experienced less postoperative weight loss of > 10%. Females had significantly higher rates of any grade AEs including nausea, abdominal pain, stomatitis, vomiting, and neutropenia, and experienced more grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting. The dose intensity of chemotherapy was significantly lower in females, and they also experienced more frequent dose reduction after the first cycle. Moreover, female patients receiving platinum-containing regimens had significantly higher rates of unscheduled outpatient visits. Conclusion Our study found that females experienced a higher incidence of multiple any-grade AEs and severe neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting, across various cancer types, leading to more frequent dose reductions. Physicians should be aware of sex differences in AEs for chemotherapy decisions.

With recent advances in adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy, efficacy and toxicity screening have become essential for developing gene therapeutic drugs for retinal diseases. Retinal organoids from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) offer a more accessible and reproducible human test platform for evaluating AAV-based gene therapy.In this study, hPSCs were differentiated into retinal organoids composed of various types of retinal cells. The transduction efficiencies of AAV2 and AAV8, which are widely used in clinical trials of inherited retinal diseases, were analyzed using retinal organoids. These results suggest that retinal organoids derived from hPSCs serve as suitable screening platforms owing to their diverse retinal cell types and similarity to the human retina. In summary, we propose an optimal stepwise protocol that includes the generation of retinal organoids and analysis of AAV transduction efficacy, providing a comprehensive approach for evaluating AAV-based gene therapy for retinal diseases.

Background/Aims: The prognostic significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) in peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are controversial. We explored the prognostic impact of sequential 18F-FDG PET/CT during frontline chemotherapy of patients with PTCLs. Methods: In total, 143 patients with newly diagnosed PTCLs were included. Sequential 18F-FDG PET/CTs were performed at the time of diagnosis, during chemotherapy, and at the end of chemotherapy. The baseline total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) was calculated using the the standard uptake value with a threshold method of 2.5. Results: A baseline TMTV of 457.0 cm3 was used to categorize patients into high and low TMTV groups. Patients with a requirehigh TMTV had shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than those with a low TMTV (PFS, 9.8 vs. 26.5 mo, p = 0.043; OS, 18.9 vs. 71.2 mo, p = 0.004). The interim 18F-FDG PET/CT response score was recorded as 1, 2–3, and 4–5 according to the Deauville criteria. The PFS and OS showed significant differences according to the interim 18F-FDG PET/CT response score (PFS, 120.7 vs. 34.1 vs. 5.1 mo, p < 0.001; OS, not reached vs. 61.1 mo vs. 12.1 mo, p < 0.001). Conclusions The interim PET/CT response based on visual assessment predicts disease progression and survival outcome in PTCLs. A high baseline TMTV is associated with a poor response to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in PTCLs. However, TMTV was not an independent predictor for PFS in the multivariate analysis.

Purpose: We evaluated the characteristics of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein α (CEBPA) mutations and the significance of a basic leucine zipper in-frame mutation (bZIPin-f) of CEBPA in patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a normal karyotype. Materials and Methods: Based on updated knowledge of CEBPA mutations, we conducted next-generation sequencing analyses in a previously established real-world cohort. Results: Among 78 of a total of 395 patients (19.7%), 50 had bZIPin-f CEBPA, and 28 had non-bZIPin-f CEBPA. In the multivariate analysis, patients with NPM1mut, those with bZIPin-f CEBPA, and those who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) had favorable overall survival (OS), but FLT3-ITDmut was a poor prognostic indicator. For relapse-free survival (RFS) and cumulative incidence of relapse, bZIPin-f CEBPA, and allo-HCT were associated with favorable outcomes; FLT3-ITDpos was associated with worse outcomes. In the CEBPA double-mutated group (CEBPAdm), bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with superior outcomes in terms of OS (p=0.007) and RFS (p=0.007) compared with non-bZIPin-f CEBPA. Of 50 patients with bZIPin-f CEBPA, 36 patients had at least one mutation. When grouped by the presence of mutations in chromatic/DNA modifiers (C), cohesion complex (C), and splicing genes (S) (CCS mutations), CCS-mutated bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with poor OS (p=0.044; hazard ratio [HR], 2.419) and a trend in inferior RFS (p=0.186; HR, 1.838). Conclusion Only bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with favorable outcomes in patients with CEBPAdm. However, some mutations accompanying bZIPin-f CEBPA showed inferior OS; thus, further studies with larger numbers of patients are required for clear conclusions of the significance of bZIPin-f CEBPA.