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.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the added value of contrast leakage information from dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC MRI) is a better prognostic imaging biomarker than the cerebral blood volume (CBV) value in distinguishing true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients. Materials and Methods: Forty-nine glioblastoma patients who had undergone MRI after concurrent chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide were enrolled in this retrospective study. Twenty features were extracted from the normalized relative CBV (nCBV) and extraction fraction (EF) map of the contrast-enhancing region in each patient. After univariable analysis, we used multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis to identify significant predictors for differentiating between pseudoprogression and true progression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed to determine the best cutoff values for the nCBV and EF features. Finally, leave-one-out cross-validation was used to validate the best predictor in differentiating between true progression and pseudoprogression. Results: Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that MGMT (O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase) and EF max were independent differentiating variables (P = 0.004 and P = 0.02, respectively). ROC analysis yielded the best cutoff value of 95.75 for the EF max value for differentiating the two groups (sensitivity, 61%; specificity, 84.6%; AUC, 0.681 ± 0.08; 95% CI, 0.524-0.837; P = 0.03). In the leave-one-out cross-validation of the EF max value, the cross-validated values for predicting true progression and pseudoprogression accuracies were 69.4% and 71.4%,respectively. Conclusion We demonstrated that contrast leakage information parameter from DSC MRI showed significance in differentiating true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients.

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.

PURPOSE: To investigate the current status of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in Korea and the difference in efficacy of AC administered by surgical and medical oncologists in patients with stage II or III gastric cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study among 1,049 patients who underwent curative resection and received AC for stage II and III gastric cancers between February 2012 and December 2013 at 29 tertiary referral university hospitals in Korea. To minimize the influence of potential confounders on selection bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was used based on binary logistic regression analysis. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared between patients who received AC administered by medical oncologists or surgical oncologists. RESULTS: Between February 2012 and December 2013 in Korea, the most commonly prescribed AC by medical oncologists was tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1, 47.72%), followed by capecitabine with oxaliplatin (XELOX, 16.33%). After performing PSM, surgical oncologists (82.74%) completed AC as planned more often than medical oncologists (75.9%), with statistical significance (P=0.036). No difference in the 3-year DFS rates of stage II (P=0.567) or stage III (P=0.545) gastric cancer was found between the medical and surgical oncologist groups. CONCLUSIONS: S-1 monotherapy and XELOX are a main stay of AC, regardless of whether the prescribing physician is a medical or surgical oncologist. The better compliance with AC by surgical oncologists is a valid reason to advocate that surgical oncologists perform the treatment of AC for stage II or III gastric cancers.
Capecitabine ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant* ; Compliance ; Disease-Free Survival ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Korea* ; Logistic Models ; Observational Study ; Propensity Score ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies* ; Selection Bias ; Stomach Neoplasms*

OBJECTIVE: Delaying embryo transfer (ET) enables us to select among the embryos available for transfer and is associated with positive effects on implantation and pregnancy outcomes. However, the optimal day for ET of human cleavage-stage embryos remains controversial. METHODS: A retrospective study of 3,124 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles (2,440 patients) was conducted. We compared the effects of day 2 and 3 ET on rates of implantation and pregnancy outcomes between young maternal age (YMA; <38 years old, n=2,295) and old maternal age (OMA; ≥38 years old, n=829) patient groups. RESULTS: The YMA and OMA groups did not differ in terms of patient characteristics except for the proportion of unexplained factor infertility, which was significantly greater in the OMA group, and the proportion of arrested embryos, which was significantly greater in the YMA group. However, the biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, abortion, and implantation rates per cycle were not significantly different between day 2 and 3 ET in the YMA group or the OMA group. CONCLUSION: We suggest that offering patients the opportunity to decide which day would be suitable for ET could be part of a patient-friendly protocol that takes into consideration an infertile woman's circumstances and work schedule by allowing ET to be performed on day 2 instead of the traditional transfer on day 3.
Appointments and Schedules ; Embryo Transfer* ; Embryonic Structures* ; Female ; Humans ; In Vitro Techniques ; Infertility ; Maternal Age* ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome ; Retrospective Studies ; Spermatozoa

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether performing an assessment of myocardial deformation using speckle tracking imaging during the recovery period after dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) allows detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest discomfort. METHODS: DSE and coronary angiography were performed in 44 patients with chest discomfort. The mean global longitudinal peak systolic strain (GLS) was measured at rest, at low stress (dobutamine infusion rate of 10 microg/kg/min) and at recovery (5 min after cessation of dobutamine infusion) of DSE using automated function imaging with apical views. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was also performed in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. CAD was defined as having a > or = 70% diameter stenosis on coronary angiography or as having a FFR < 0.8. Patients were divided two groups based on the absence or presence of CAD [CAD (-) group vs. CAD (+) group]. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics and results of conventional echocardiography between the two groups. GLS at recovery was lower in the CAD (+) group than in the CAD (-) group (-18.0 +/- 3.4% vs. -21.0 +/- 1.9%, p = 0.003). The optimal cutoff of GLS at recovery for detection of CAD was -19% (sensitivity of 70.6%, specificity of 83.3%). CONCLUSION: Assessment of GLS at recovery of DSE is a reliable and objective method for detection of CAD. This finding may suggest that systolic myocardial stunning remains even after recovery of wall motion abnormalities in patients with CAD.
Constriction, Pathologic ; Coronary Angiography ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Coronary Stenosis ; Dobutamine ; Echocardiography ; Echocardiography, Stress* ; Humans ; Myocardial Stunning ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Thorax

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Overexposure to intense sound can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Post-exposure recovery of thresholds has been assumed to indicate reversal of damage to the inner ear without persistent consequences for auditory function. However, there was a report that acoustic overexposures causing moderate temporary threshold shift caused acute loss of afferent nerve terminals and delayed degeneration of the cochlear ganglion cells while cochlear sensory cells were intact. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the numerical changes of ribbon synapses and efferents to the outer hair cells in ears with temporary noise-induced threshold shifts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four-week old CBA mice with normal Preyer's reflexes were used. Mice were exposed to white noise of 110 dB SPL for one hour. Auditory brainstem response (ABR) and distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) were recorded before exposure and at four different post-exposure times, 1, 3, 5, and 7 days after noise exposure. Ribbon synapses and efferents near cochlear nerve terminals were stained and calculated in the control group mice at two post-exposure times, 3 and 5 days after the exposure. RESULTS: In the noise-exposed ears, there was no loss of hair cells, in either inner hair cells or outer hair cells. ABR and DPOAE showed maximum threshold shifts after noise-exposure; they returned to the normal pre-exposure values by at day 5. The number of ribbon synapses tended to decrease at 3 days after noise-exposure, but the number of efferent fibers was not statistically different from those of the control mice. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the loss of ribbon synapses could be related with the recovery course of temporary threshold shift, even to the point of full hearing recovery.
Acoustics ; Animals ; Cochlear Nerve ; Ear ; Ear, Inner ; European Continental Ancestry Group ; Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem ; Ganglion Cysts ; Hair ; Hair Cells, Auditory ; Hearing ; Hearing Loss ; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced ; Humans ; Mice ; Mice, Inbred CBA ; Noise ; Presynaptic Terminals ; Reflex ; Synapses

PURPOSE: Band erosion is a well-known complication of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band placement. We gained experience with laparoscopic removal of an eroded gastric band. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the operative log of our obesity surgery unit to identify all operations performed for band erosion from March 2009 to May 2011. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of six of 96 patients (6.3%), five females and one male, were diagnosed with band erosion and underwent surgical removal of the band system. The median time interval from the initial gastric band placement to the diagnosis of band erosion was 8.5 months (range, 7 to 22 months), with most band erosion occurring within the first year (5/6, 83%). The median body mass index at band removal was 28.4 kg/m2. Upper abdominal pain was the most common symptom (5/6, 83%), and other signs and symptoms were port site infection (3/6, 50%) and loss of restriction and weight regain (1/6, 17%). All eroded bands were removed using laparoscopy. Further complications after laparoscopic removal of the band system were observed in three cases. One patient showed multiple intra-abdominal abscesses requiring insertion of a pigtail catheter for drainage. The other two patients experienced sepsis with localized peritonitis, eventually requiring laparoscopic washout and drainage. CONCLUSION: Gastric band erosion requires the removal of the gastric band. Laparoscopic removal is technically achievable in the majority of patients with eroded gastric band. The method can be challenging, has potential postoperative complications (fistula, abscess), and should be attempted only by experienced surgeons.
Abdominal Abscess ; Abdominal Pain ; Bariatric Surgery ; Body Mass Index ; Catheters ; Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A1 ; Drainage ; Female ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Male ; Obesity ; Obesity, Morbid ; Peritonitis ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies ; Sepsis