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.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Purpose: Gastric cancer (GC) is among the most prevalent and fatal cancers worldwide.National cancer screening programs in countries with high incidences of this disease provide medical aid beneficiaries with free-of-charge screening involving upper endoscopy to detect early-stage GC. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to routine healthcare access. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, overall incidence, and stage distribution of GC. Materials and Methods: We identified patients in our hospital cancer registry who were diagnosed with GC between January 2018 and December 2021 and compared the cancer stage at diagnosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to age and sex. The years 2018 and 2019 were defined as the “before COVID” period, and the years 2020 and 2021 as the “during COVID” period. Results: Overall, 10,875 patients were evaluated; 6,535 and 4,340 patients were diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 period, respectively. The number of diagnoses was lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (189 patients/month vs. 264 patients/month) than before it.Notably, the proportion of patients with stages 3 or 4 GC in 2021 was higher among men and patients aged ≥40 years. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall number of GC diagnoses decreased significantly in a single institute. Moreover, GCs were in more advanced stages at the time of diagnosis. Further studies are required to elucidate the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay in the detection of GC worldwide.

Background: Iliotibial band friction syndrome (ITBFS) is a common disorder of the lateral knee. Previous research has reported that the iliotibial band (ITB) thickness (ITBT) is correlated with ITBFS, and ITBT has been considered to be a key morphologic parameter of ITBFS. However, the thickness is different from inflammatory hypertrophy. Thus, we made the ITB cross-sectional area (ITBCSA) a new morphological parameter to assess ITBFS. Methods: Forty-three patients with ITBFS group and from 43 normal group who underwent T1W magnetic resonance imaging were enrolled. The ITBCSA was measured as the cross-sectional area of the ITB that was most hypertrophied in the magnetic resonance axial images. The ITBT was measured as the thickest site of ITB. Results: The mean ITBCSA was 25.24 ± 6.59 mm 2 in the normal group and 38.75 ± 9.11 mm 2 in the ITBFS group. The mean ITBT was 1.94 ± 0.41 mm in the normal group and 2.62 ± 0.46 mm in the ITBFS group. Patients in ITBFS group had significantly higher ITBCSA (P < 0.001) and ITBT (P < 0.001) than the normal group. A receiver operator characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the best cut-off value of the ITBT was 2.29 mm, with 76.7% sensitivity, 79.1% specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) 0.88. The optimal cut-off score of the ITBCSA was 30.66 mm 2 , with 79.1% sensitivity, 79.1% specificity, and AUC 0.87. Conclusions ITBCSA is a new and sensitive morphological parameter for diagnosing ITBFS, and may even be more accurate than ITBT.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to describe cases of feline intermediate- to high-grade alimentary lymphoma regarding signalment, clinical presentation, laboratory findings, response to therapy (modified 25-week University of Wisconsin–Madison [UW-25] vs. COP [cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone]), toxicosis, and outcomes and to identify prognostic factors. Sixteen cats were treated with chemotherapy protocols. Response rates and survival did not differ statistically between the two protocols. The progression-free interval (PFI) and median survival time (MST) in cats achieving a response to therapy were longer than in those with no response [NR] (complete remission [CR] vs. partial remission [PR] vs. NR; PFI, 124 vs. 49 vs. 12 days, p < 0.001; MST, 361 vs. 118 vs. 16 days, p < 0.001). Clinical stage was another prognostic factor for PFI and MST. The PFI and MST in cats in stage I were longer than in those in other stages (PFI, 107 days vs. 30 days; MST, 193 days vs. 54 days). Hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicosis was mostly low grade. In comparing the modified UW-25 protocol with the COP protocol, there was not much difference in the number of neutropenic episodes and grade levels.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to describe cases of feline intermediate- to high-grade alimentary lymphoma regarding signalment, clinical presentation, laboratory findings, response to therapy (modified 25-week University of Wisconsin–Madison [UW-25] vs. COP [cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone]), toxicosis, and outcomes and to identify prognostic factors. Sixteen cats were treated with chemotherapy protocols. Response rates and survival did not differ statistically between the two protocols. The progression-free interval (PFI) and median survival time (MST) in cats achieving a response to therapy were longer than in those with no response [NR] (complete remission [CR] vs. partial remission [PR] vs. NR; PFI, 124 vs. 49 vs. 12 days, p < 0.001; MST, 361 vs. 118 vs. 16 days, p < 0.001). Clinical stage was another prognostic factor for PFI and MST. The PFI and MST in cats in stage I were longer than in those in other stages (PFI, 107 days vs. 30 days; MST, 193 days vs. 54 days). Hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicosis was mostly low grade. In comparing the modified UW-25 protocol with the COP protocol, there was not much difference in the number of neutropenic episodes and grade levels.

Background: Iliotibial band friction syndrome (ITBFS) is a common disorder of the lateral knee. Previous research has reported that the iliotibial band (ITB) thickness (ITBT) is correlated with ITBFS, and ITBT has been considered to be a key morphologic parameter of ITBFS. However, the thickness is different from inflammatory hypertrophy. Thus, we made the ITB cross-sectional area (ITBCSA) a new morphological parameter to assess ITBFS. Methods: Forty-three patients with ITBFS group and from 43 normal group who underwent T1W magnetic resonance imaging were enrolled. The ITBCSA was measured as the cross-sectional area of the ITB that was most hypertrophied in the magnetic resonance axial images. The ITBT was measured as the thickest site of ITB. Results: The mean ITBCSA was 25.24 ± 6.59 mm 2 in the normal group and 38.75 ± 9.11 mm 2 in the ITBFS group. The mean ITBT was 1.94 ± 0.41 mm in the normal group and 2.62 ± 0.46 mm in the ITBFS group. Patients in ITBFS group had significantly higher ITBCSA (P < 0.001) and ITBT (P < 0.001) than the normal group. A receiver operator characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the best cut-off value of the ITBT was 2.29 mm, with 76.7% sensitivity, 79.1% specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) 0.88. The optimal cut-off score of the ITBCSA was 30.66 mm 2 , with 79.1% sensitivity, 79.1% specificity, and AUC 0.87. Conclusions ITBCSA is a new and sensitive morphological parameter for diagnosing ITBFS, and may even be more accurate than ITBT.