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 and Objectives: Atrial tachycardias (ATs) from noncoronary aortic cusp (NCC) uncovered after radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) are rarely reported. This study was conducted to investigate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of NCC ATs detected during AF ablation and compare their characteristics with de novo NCC ATs without AF. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for AF were reviewed from the multicenter AF ablation registry of 11 tertiary hospitals. The clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of NCC AT newly detected during AF ablation were compared with its comparators (de novo NCC AT ablation cases without AF). Results: Among 10,178 AF cases, including 1,301 redo ablation cases, 8 (0.08%) NCC AT cases were discovered after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI; 0.07% in first ablation and 0.15% in redo ablation cases). All ATs were reproducibly inducible spontaneously or with programmed atrial stimulation without isoproterenol infusion. The P-wave morphological features of tachycardia were variable depending on the case, and most cases exhibited 1:1 atrioventricular conduction. AF recurrence rate after PVI and NCC AT successful ablation was 12.5% (1 of 8). Tachycardia cycle length was shorter than that of 17 de novo ATs from NCC (303 versus 378, p=0.012). No AV block occurred during and after successful AT ablation. Conclusions Uncommon NCC ATs (0.08% in AF ablation cases) uncovered after PVI, showing different characteristics compared to de-novo NCC ATs, should be suspected irrespective of P-wave morphologies when AT shows broad propagation from the anterior interatrial septum.

Purpose: The Eyelike K-flex Aspheric® (Koryoeyetech, Seoul, Korea) is manufactured in 0.25-diopter (D) intervals, which allows the target refractive error after surgery to be achieved. We here evaluate the refractive power outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively studied 95 eyes of 72 patients who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of the Eyelike K-flex Aspheric®. Refractive error was measured at 1 and 2 months postoperatively (33 eyes of 27 patients) and compared to that of patients fitted with 0.50-D-interval lenses (62 eyes of 49 patients). Results: At 1 month postoperatively, the mean absolute error between the spherical equivalent and planned value was 0.33 ± 0.28 and 0.41 ± 0.39 D in the 0.25- and 0.50 D-interval lens groups, respectively (p = 0.318). At 2 months postoperatively, the respective values were 0.21 ± 0.15 and 0.34 ± 0.29 D (p = 0.009). Conclusions The Eyelike K-flex Aspheric® shows excellent refractive predictability; use of 0.25-D-interval intraocular lenses close to the target refractive power allows the desired spherical equivalent to be achieved.

Purpose: The Eyelike K-flex Aspheric® (Koryoeyetech, Seoul, Korea) is manufactured in 0.25-diopter (D) intervals, which allows the target refractive error after surgery to be achieved. We here evaluate the refractive power outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively studied 95 eyes of 72 patients who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of the Eyelike K-flex Aspheric®. Refractive error was measured at 1 and 2 months postoperatively (33 eyes of 27 patients) and compared to that of patients fitted with 0.50-D-interval lenses (62 eyes of 49 patients). Results: At 1 month postoperatively, the mean absolute error between the spherical equivalent and planned value was 0.33 ± 0.28 and 0.41 ± 0.39 D in the 0.25- and 0.50 D-interval lens groups, respectively (p = 0.318). At 2 months postoperatively, the respective values were 0.21 ± 0.15 and 0.34 ± 0.29 D (p = 0.009). Conclusions The Eyelike K-flex Aspheric® shows excellent refractive predictability; use of 0.25-D-interval intraocular lenses close to the target refractive power allows the desired spherical equivalent to be achieved.

Purpose: To compare long-term disease-free survival (DFS) between patients receiving tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for gastric cancer (GC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective multicenter observational study enrolled 983 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy with consecutive AC with S-1 or CAPOX for stage II or III GC at 27 hospitals in Korea between February 2012 and December 2013. We conducted propensity score matching to reduce selection bias. Long-term oncologic outcomes, including DFS rate over 5 years (over-5yr DFS), were analyzed postoperatively. Results: The median and longest follow-up period were 59.0 and 87.6 months, respectively. DFS rate did not differ between patients who received S-1 and CAPOX for pathologic stage II (P=0.677) and stage III (P=0.899) GC. Moreover, hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence did not differ significantly between S-1 and CAPOX (reference) in stage II (HR, 1.846; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.693–4.919; P=0.220) and stage III (HR, 0.942; 95% CI, 0.664–1.337; P=0.738) GC. After adjustment for significance in multivariate analysis, pT (4 vs. 1) (HR, 11.667; 95% CI, 1.595–85.351; P=0.016), pN stage (0 vs. 3) (HR, 2.788; 95% CI, 1.502–5.174; P=0.001), and completion of planned chemotherapy (HR, 2.213; 95% CI, 1.618–3.028; P<0.001) were determined as independent prognostic factors for DFS. Conclusions S-1 and CAPOX AC regimens did not show significant difference in over-5yr DFS after curative gastrectomy in patients with stage II or III GC. The pT, pN stage, and completion of planned chemotherapy were prognostic factors for GC recurrence.

OBJECTIVES: Most studies of hippocampal metabolism(HM) in amnestic mild cognitive impairment(aMCI) gave inconsistent results. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of amyloid-beta(Aβ) status on hippocampal metabolism in aMCI.METHODS: Overall, 23 aMCI underwent three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging(MRI), ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography(¹⁸FDG-PET) and ¹⁸F-Fluorbetaben amyloid positron emission tomography (amyloid-PET). According to Aβ status on amyloid PET, 23 aMCI were classified as either Aβ+aMCI(N=13) or Aβ−aMCI(N=10). The primary outcome was HM using ¹⁸FDG-PET and we investigate the difference on HM between Aβ+aMCI and Aβ−aMCI using analysis of variance(ANOVA) model, after controlling hippocampal volume.RESULTS: We found that HM was more decreased in Aβ+aMCI than Aβ−aMCI. This result was not changed after controlling hippocampal volume.CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that Aβ+ is associated with decreased HM, regardless of hippocampal volume, in aMCI.
Amyloid ; Cognition Disorders ; Metabolism ; Pilot Projects ; Plaque, Amyloid ; Positron-Emission Tomography

PURPOSE: This study aimed to elucidate which echocardiographic criteria at three time points, for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response, are accurate in discriminating the hierarchical clinical composite end point (HCCEP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 120 patients (age, 66.1±12.6 years; men, 54.2%) who underwent CRT implantation for heart failure (HF). Echocardiography was performed before and at 3, 6, and 12 months after CRT implantation. The 1-year HCCEP included all-cause mortality, hospitalization for HF, and New York Heart Association functional class for 12 months. CRT response criteria were decrease in left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume (LVESV) >15%, decrease in LV end-diastolic volume >15%, absolute increase in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥5%, relative increase in LVEF ≥15%, and decrease in mitral regurgitation ≥1 grade. Temporal changes in CRT response rates, accuracy of CRT response criteria at each time and cutoff value for the discrimination of improvement in HCCEP, and agreements with improvement in HCCEP were analyzed. RESULTS: HCCEP improvement rates were 65.8% in total group. In nonischemic group, CRT response rates according to all echocardiographic criteria significantly increased with time. In ischemic group, CRT response rate did not significantly change with time. In total group, ΔLVESV at 6 months (ΔLVESV6) had the most significant accuracy for the discrimination of HCCEP (area under the curve=0.781). The optimal cutoff value of ΔLVESV6 was 13.5% (sensitivity=0.719, specificity=0.719). ΔLVESV6 had fair agreement with HCCEP (κ=0.391, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ΔLVESV6 is the most useful echocardiographic CRT response criterion for the prediction of 1-year HCCEP.
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy* ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Echocardiography ; Heart ; Heart Failure ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Male ; Mitral Valve Insufficiency ; Mortality ; Stroke Volume*

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent thromboembolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients has limitations such as drug interaction. This study investigated the clinical characteristics of Korean patients treated with VKA for stroke prevention and assessed quality of VKA therapy and treatment satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study. Patients with CHADS2 ≥ 1 and treated with VKA (started within the last 3 months) were enrolled from April 2013 to March 2014. Demographic and clinical features including risk factors of stroke and VKA treatment information was collected at baseline. Treatment patterns and international normalized ratio (INR) level were evaluated during follow-up. Time in therapeutic range (TTR) > 60% indicated well-controlled INR. Treatment satisfaction on the VKA use was measured by Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) after 3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 877 patients (age, 67; male, 60%) were enrolled and followed up for one year. More than half of patients (56%) had CHADS2 ≥ 2 and 83.6% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2. A total of 852 patients had one or more INR measurement during their follow-up period. Among those patients, 25.5% discontinued VKA treatment during follow-up. Of all patients, 626 patients (73%) had poor-controlled INR (TTR < 60%) measure. Patients' treatment satisfaction measured with TSQM was 55.6 in global satisfaction domain. CONCLUSION: INR was poorly controlled in Korean NVAF patients treated with VKA. VKA users also showed low treatment satisfaction.
Atrial Fibrillation* ; Drug Interactions ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; International Normalized Ratio ; Male ; Prospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Stroke ; Thromboembolism ; Vitamin K* ; Vitamins*