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: Inhibitory effects of denosumab on bone remodeling are reversible and disappear once treatment is discontinued. Herein, we examined whether and to what extent delayed denosumab administration is also associated with fracture risk using nation-wide data. Methods: The study cohort included women aged 45 to 89 years who were started on denosumab for osteoporosis between October 2017 and December 2019 using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Participants were stratified according to the time of their subsequent denosumab administration from the last denosumab administration, including those with within 30 days early dosing (ED30), within the planned time of 180–210 days (referent), within 30–90 days of delayed dosing (DD90), within 90–180 days of delayed dosing (DD180), and longer than 181 days of delayed dosing (DD181+). The primary outcome was the incidence of all clinical fractures. Results: A total of 149,199 participants included and 2,323 all clinical fractures (including 1,223 vertebral fractures) occurred. The incidence of all fractures was significantly higher in the DD90 compared to reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4). The risk of all fracture was even higher in the longer delayed DD180 group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) and DD181+ group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2). Increased risks of fractures with delayed dosing were consistently observed for vertebral fractures. Conclusion Delayed denosumab dosing, even by 1 to 3 months, was significantly associated with increased fracture risk. Maintaining the correct dosing schedule should be emphasized when starting denosumab.

Background: Inhibitory effects of denosumab on bone remodeling are reversible and disappear once treatment is discontinued. Herein, we examined whether and to what extent delayed denosumab administration is also associated with fracture risk using nation-wide data. Methods: The study cohort included women aged 45 to 89 years who were started on denosumab for osteoporosis between October 2017 and December 2019 using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Participants were stratified according to the time of their subsequent denosumab administration from the last denosumab administration, including those with within 30 days early dosing (ED30), within the planned time of 180–210 days (referent), within 30–90 days of delayed dosing (DD90), within 90–180 days of delayed dosing (DD180), and longer than 181 days of delayed dosing (DD181+). The primary outcome was the incidence of all clinical fractures. Results: A total of 149,199 participants included and 2,323 all clinical fractures (including 1,223 vertebral fractures) occurred. The incidence of all fractures was significantly higher in the DD90 compared to reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4). The risk of all fracture was even higher in the longer delayed DD180 group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) and DD181+ group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2). Increased risks of fractures with delayed dosing were consistently observed for vertebral fractures. Conclusion Delayed denosumab dosing, even by 1 to 3 months, was significantly associated with increased fracture risk. Maintaining the correct dosing schedule should be emphasized when starting denosumab.

Background: Inhibitory effects of denosumab on bone remodeling are reversible and disappear once treatment is discontinued. Herein, we examined whether and to what extent delayed denosumab administration is also associated with fracture risk using nation-wide data. Methods: The study cohort included women aged 45 to 89 years who were started on denosumab for osteoporosis between October 2017 and December 2019 using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Participants were stratified according to the time of their subsequent denosumab administration from the last denosumab administration, including those with within 30 days early dosing (ED30), within the planned time of 180–210 days (referent), within 30–90 days of delayed dosing (DD90), within 90–180 days of delayed dosing (DD180), and longer than 181 days of delayed dosing (DD181+). The primary outcome was the incidence of all clinical fractures. Results: A total of 149,199 participants included and 2,323 all clinical fractures (including 1,223 vertebral fractures) occurred. The incidence of all fractures was significantly higher in the DD90 compared to reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4). The risk of all fracture was even higher in the longer delayed DD180 group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) and DD181+ group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2). Increased risks of fractures with delayed dosing were consistently observed for vertebral fractures. Conclusion Delayed denosumab dosing, even by 1 to 3 months, was significantly associated with increased fracture risk. Maintaining the correct dosing schedule should be emphasized when starting denosumab.

Background: Inhibitory effects of denosumab on bone remodeling are reversible and disappear once treatment is discontinued. Herein, we examined whether and to what extent delayed denosumab administration is also associated with fracture risk using nation-wide data. Methods: The study cohort included women aged 45 to 89 years who were started on denosumab for osteoporosis between October 2017 and December 2019 using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Participants were stratified according to the time of their subsequent denosumab administration from the last denosumab administration, including those with within 30 days early dosing (ED30), within the planned time of 180–210 days (referent), within 30–90 days of delayed dosing (DD90), within 90–180 days of delayed dosing (DD180), and longer than 181 days of delayed dosing (DD181+). The primary outcome was the incidence of all clinical fractures. Results: A total of 149,199 participants included and 2,323 all clinical fractures (including 1,223 vertebral fractures) occurred. The incidence of all fractures was significantly higher in the DD90 compared to reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4). The risk of all fracture was even higher in the longer delayed DD180 group (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) and DD181+ group (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2). Increased risks of fractures with delayed dosing were consistently observed for vertebral fractures. Conclusion Delayed denosumab dosing, even by 1 to 3 months, was significantly associated with increased fracture risk. Maintaining the correct dosing schedule should be emphasized when starting denosumab.

OBJECTIVES: Stroke remains the second leading cause of death in Korea. This study was designed to estimate the crude, age-adjusted and age-specific incidence rates, as well as the case fatality rate of stroke, in Korea from 2011 to 2020. METHODS: We utilized data from the National Health Insurance Services from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2020, to calculate incidence rates and 30-day and 1-year case fatality rates of stroke. Additionally, we determined sex and age-specific incidence rates and computed age-standardized incidence rates by direct standardization to the 2005 population. RESULTS: The crude incidence rate of stroke hovered around 200 (per 100,000 person-years) from 2011 to 2015, then surged to 218.4 in 2019, before marginally declining to 208.0 in 2020. Conversely, the age-standardized incidence rate consistently decreased by 25% between 2011 and 2020. When stratified by sex, the crude incidence rate increased between 2011 and 2019 for both sexes, followed by a decrease in 2020. Age-standardized incidence rates displayed a downward trend throughout the study period for both sexes. Across all age groups, the 30-day and 1-year case fatality rates of stroke consistently decreased from 2011 to 2019, only to increase in 2020. CONCLUSIONS Despite a decrease in the age-standardized incidence rate, the total number of stroke events in Korea continues to rise due to the rapidly aging population. Moreover, 2020 witnessed a decrease in incidence but an increase in case fatality rates.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular diseases are a leading cause of mortality worldwide, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is particularly fatal condition. We evaluated the incidence and case fatality rates of AMI in Korea from 2011 to 2020. METHODS: We utilized data from the National Health Insurance Services to calculate crude, age-standardized, and age-specific incidence rates, along with 30-day and 1-year case fatality rates, of AMI from 2011 to 2020. Age-standardized incidence rates were determined using direct standardization to the 2005 population. RESULTS: The crude incidence rate of AMI per 100,000 person-years consistently increased from 44.7 in 2011 to 68.3 in 2019, before decreasing slightly to 66.2 in 2020. The age-standardized incidence rate of AMI displayed a 19% rise from 2011 to 2019, followed by a slight decline in 2020. The increasing trend for AMI incidence was more pronounced in males than in females. Both 30-day and 1-year case fatality rates remained stable among younger individuals but showed a decrease among older individuals. There was a minor surge in case fatality in 2020, particularly among recurrent AMI cases. CONCLUSIONS Over the past decade, the AMI incidence rate in Korea has consistently increased, with a slight downturn in 2020. The case fatality rate has remained relatively stable except for a minor increase in 2020. This study provides data for continuous surveillance, the implementation of targeted interventions, and the advancement of research aimed at AMI in Korea.

Background: Chronic cough is a common symptom encountered by healthcare practitioners.The global prevalence of chronic cough is 9.6%, with a female predominance. The aim of our study is to reveal the sex differences in prevalence and severity of chronic cough in South Korea, stratified by age and etiology. Methods: This study included adult patients with chronic cough who were recruited from 19 respiratory centers in South Korea. Patients completed the cough numeric rating scale (NRS) and COugh Assessment Test (COAT) questionnaire to assess the severity and multidimensional impact of cough. Results: Among the 625 patients, 419 (67.0%) were females, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:2.03. The mean age was 49.4 years, and the median duration of cough was 12 weeks. The mean NRS and COAT scores were 5.5 ± 1.8 and 9.5 ± 3.6, respectively. Female patients were older (45.3 ± 15.4 vs. 51.6 ± 15.2, P < 0.001) and more likely to have asthma/cough variant asthma (CVA) (26.7% vs. 40.8%, P = 0.001) than male patients. There was no difference in the duration or severity of cough between sexes, regardless of the cause. The male-tofemale ratio was lower for upper airway cough syndrome (UACS), asthma/CVA, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but not for eosinophilic bronchitis (EB) or unexplained cough. The mean age of female patients was higher in UACS and asthma/CVA, but not in EB, GERD, or unexplained cough. The majority (24.2%) fell within the age category of 50s. The proportion of females with cough increased with age, with a significant rise in the 50s, 60s, and 70–89 age groups. The severity of cough decreased in the 50s, 60s, and 70–89 age groups, with no significant sex differences within the same age group. Conclusion The sex disparities in prevalence and severity of cough varied significantly depending on the age category and etiology. Understanding the specific sex-based difference could enhance comprehension of cough-related pathophysiology and treatment strategies.