Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

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 purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

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 purpose of this study is to compare scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula and neck according to the classification of forward head posture (FHP), round shoulder posture (RSP) and forward head with round shoulder posture (FHRSP). Methods: Scapular alignment, muscle strength around the scapula, and neck strength were measured according to the FHP and RSP alignment classification for male college students. Scapular alignment was confirmed by measuring acromial depression, scapular lateral displacement, and scapular acromion distance. Muscle strength was measured during isometric contraction of upper trapezius (UT), middle trapezius (MT), lower trapezius (LT), and neck muscles. Results: Acromial depression was significantly greater in the FHP (7.20±1.02 cm) than in the RSP group (5.60±1.26 cm) and FHRSP (5.26±1.75 cm) (p＜0.05). The strength of the UT was significantly greater in the FHRSP (1.12±0.12 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.87±0.19 N/BW), and the strength of the LT was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.04 N/BW) than in the FHP (0.15±0.03 N/BW) and RSP (0.15±0.04 N/BW) (p＜0.05). The LT:UT ratio was significantly greater in the control group (0.20±0.05) than in the FHRSP (0.15±0.02) (p＜0.05). Conclusion UT strength was higher in RSP subjects with scapular elevation accompanied by FHP than in those with FHP alone. And LT strength and the LT:UT ratio were higher in subjects withno abnormalities in postural alignment. We suggest that these results can serve as a reference for evaluation and intervention according to postural alignment in clinical practice.

This study aimed to assess the prognostic role of body mass index (BMI) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy. We searched for relevant studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The initial search yielded 599 records, of which seven articles (2,517 patients) were selected for analysis. Patients with a high BMI had a favorable overall survival (OS) based on hazard ratio (HR) (crude HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.83, p<0.0001; adjusted (a)HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95, p=0.02), but not relative risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.16, p=0.37). In the subgroup analysis, patients with a high BMI had better OS in the ICI with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) subgroup (aHR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55–0.92, p=0.01), while no significant difference was found in the ICI-only subgroup (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.56–1.87, p=0.95). Adjusted statistics for progression-free survival (PFS) were assessable in predominantly ICI-only studies and demonstrated a favorable outcome for patients with a low BMI (aHR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14–2.45, p=0.01). In conclusion, the impact of high BMI varies depending on the treatment type, exhibiting a favorable correlation with OS within ICI with TKI subgroup, but indicating an adverse association with PFS in the ICI-only subgroup. Further research is needed to clarify the influence of BMI by stratifying patients into ICI-only and ICI with TKI treatment to provide more insights.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a major health issue worldwide. Recent advances in systemic treatment are expected to break away from the long period of stagnation and improve treatment outcomes for this disease. Radiation therapy (RT), one of the main treatments used in the field of oncology, has not shown clear clinical benefits. Development in RT techniques such as the adaptation of computed tomography in RT planning, the use of motion control, image guidance, and particle beams have enabled high-precision, high-dose radiation delivery to tumors without increasing the risk of RT toxicity. With the application of these technical advancements, it is possible to shorten the conventional RT period from approximately 4 to 6 weeks to less than a week. The shortened duration of RT minimizes the impact of systemic treatment interruption on PDAC management and raises expectations of clinical benefits from the use of RT in various clinical situations. In this review, we discuss innovations in RT and future directions for its role in the management of PDAC.