Chest MRI is a valuable tool for assessing chest structures, particularly when CT produces inconclusive results. MRI provides exceptional soft-tissue resolution and enables the determination of lesion location, size, and invasion into neighboring structures. Its applications span various clinical scenarios, including the differentiation of non-tumorous and tumorous conditions in the mediastinum or pleura, planning of surgical interventions and treatments for such tumors, evaluation of post-treatment recurrence, staging of lung cancer, and diagnosis of progressive massive fibrosis. Despite the technical hurdles posed by cardiac and respiratory motion, advancements in sequence and scan techniques have enabled high-quality chest MRI examinations to be conducted across diverse clinical settings. This pictorial essay aims to offer comprehensive resources and strategies for radiologists to integrate chest MRI into clinical practice and to overcome its present challenges.

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.

Chest MRI is a valuable tool for assessing chest structures, particularly when CT produces inconclusive results. MRI provides exceptional soft-tissue resolution and enables the determination of lesion location, size, and invasion into neighboring structures. Its applications span various clinical scenarios, including the differentiation of non-tumorous and tumorous conditions in the mediastinum or pleura, planning of surgical interventions and treatments for such tumors, evaluation of post-treatment recurrence, staging of lung cancer, and diagnosis of progressive massive fibrosis. Despite the technical hurdles posed by cardiac and respiratory motion, advancements in sequence and scan techniques have enabled high-quality chest MRI examinations to be conducted across diverse clinical settings. This pictorial essay aims to offer comprehensive resources and strategies for radiologists to integrate chest MRI into clinical practice and to overcome its present challenges.

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.

Chest MRI is a valuable tool for assessing chest structures, particularly when CT produces inconclusive results. MRI provides exceptional soft-tissue resolution and enables the determination of lesion location, size, and invasion into neighboring structures. Its applications span various clinical scenarios, including the differentiation of non-tumorous and tumorous conditions in the mediastinum or pleura, planning of surgical interventions and treatments for such tumors, evaluation of post-treatment recurrence, staging of lung cancer, and diagnosis of progressive massive fibrosis. Despite the technical hurdles posed by cardiac and respiratory motion, advancements in sequence and scan techniques have enabled high-quality chest MRI examinations to be conducted across diverse clinical settings. This pictorial essay aims to offer comprehensive resources and strategies for radiologists to integrate chest MRI into clinical practice and to overcome its present challenges.

Background: and Purpose Perampanel (PER) is an α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid antagonist used to treat focal and generalized epilepsy. Comprehensive data from real-world settings with long-term follow-ups are still scarce. This study aimed to determine the factors related to PER retention and the polytherapy pattern with PER. Methods: We reviewed all patients with epilepsy with a history of PER prescription during 2008–2017 and over a follow-up of >3 years. PER usage patterns and associated factors were analyzed. Results: Among the 2,655 patients in the cohort, 328 (150 females, 178 males) were enrolled.The ages at onset and diagnosis were 21.1±14.7 years and 25.6±16.1 years (mean±standard deviation), respectively. The age at the first visit to our center was 31.8±13.8 years. Seizure types were focal, generalized, and unknown onset in 83.8%, 15.9%, and 0.3% of patients, respectively. The most common etiology was structural (n=109, 33.2%). The maintenance duration of PER was 22.6±19.2 months (range=1–66 months). The initial number of concomitant antiseizure medications was 2.4±1.4 (range=0–9). The most common regimen was PER plus levetiracetam (n=41, 12.5%). The median number of 1-year seizures before PER usage was 8 (range=0–1,400). A seizure reduction of >50% was recorded in 34.7% of patients (52.0% and 29.2% in generalized and focal seizures, respectively). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year retention rates for PER were 65.3%, 50.4%, 40.4%, 35.3%, and 21.5%, respectively. A multivariate analysis indicated that lower age at onset was associated with longer retention (p=0.01). Conclusions PER was safely used in patients with diverse characteristics and was maintained for a long time in a real-world setting, especially in patients with a lower age at onset.

Background: and Purpose Focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) is one of the most common causes of drug-resistant epilepsy, and necessitates a multimodal evaluation to ensure optimal surgical treatment. This study aimed to determine the supportive value of the morphometric analysis program (MAP) in detecting FCD using data from a single institution in Korea. Methods: To develop a standard reference for the MAP, normal-looking MRIs by two scanners that are frequently used in this center were chosen. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy and FCD after surgery were candidates for the analysis. The three-dimensional T1-weighted MRI scans of the patients were analyzed as test cases using the MAP. Results: The MRI scans of 87 patients were included in the analysis. The radiologist detected abnormal findings correlated with FCD (RAD positive [RAD(+)]) in 34 cases (39.1%), while the MAP could detect FCD in 25.3% of cases. A combination of the MAP (MAP[+] cases) with interpretations by the radiologist increased the detection to 42.5% (37 cases). The lesion detection rate was not different according to the type of reference scanners except in one case. MAP(+)/RAD(-) presented in three cases, all of which had FCD type IIa. The detection rate was slightly higher using the same kind of scanner as a reference, but not significantly (35.0% vs. 22.4% p=0.26). Conclusions The results of postprocessing in the MAP for detecting FCD did not depend on the type of reference scanner, and the MAP was the strongest in detecting FCD IIa. We suggested that the MAP could be widely utilized without developing institutional standards and could become an effective tool for detecting FCD lesions.

Background: This study investigates the long-term efficacy and safety of evogliptin add-on therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously received dapagliflozin and metformin (DAPA/MET) combination. Methods: In this multicenter randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels 7.0% to 10.5% (n=283) previously used DAPA 10 mg plus MET (≥1,000 mg) were randomly assigned to the evogliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo group (1:1). The primary endpoint was the difference in the HbA1c level from baseline at week 24, and exploratory endpoints included the efficacy and safety of evogliptin over 52 weeks (trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04170998). Results: Evogliptin add-on to DAPA/MET therapy was superior in HbA1c reduction compared to placebo at weeks 24 and 52 (least square [LS] mean difference, –0.65% and –0.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.79 to –0.51 and –0.71 to –0.39; P<0.0001). The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% was higher in the triple combination group at week 52 (32.14% vs. 8.51% in placebo; odds ratio, 5.62; P<0.0001). Evogliptin significantly reduced the fasting glucose levels and mean daily glucose levels with improvement in homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function (LS mean difference, 9.04; 95% CI, 1.86 to 16.21; P=0.0138). Adverse events were similar between the groups, and no serious adverse drug reactions were reported in the evogliptin group. Conclusion Long-term triple combination with evogliptin added to DAPA/MET showed superior HbA1c reduction and glycemic control compared to placebo at 52 weeks and was well tolerated.

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.