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: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: Relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) is a syndrome of physiological and/or psychological functioning experienced by female and male athletes that is caused by exposure to problematic low energy availability. For the prevention and intervention of REDs, awareness of REDs among sports physicians is important, but it is largely unknown. This study aimed to survey the awareness and clinical treatment experience of REDs in sports physicians. Methods: We conducted an online survey to assess awareness of the triad and REDs among sports physicians and members of The Korean Society of Sports Medicine. Results: A total of 69 members (62.2% male, including sports physicians) to this survey. Most participants (84.1%) were aware of the triad compared to fewer with awareness regarding REDs (23.2%). People who knew about the difference between REDs and triad was 33.3%, which was lower than those who did not (66.6%). Only 10.1% of the study subjects had experience treating REDs patients, and the biggest difficulty in treating patients was a lack of information and education (50.7%). It appeared that the most information about REDs was obtained from academic conferences (59.4%). Conclusion This survey found relatively low awareness of REDs among physicians treating athletes and sports professionals. Considering the various negative effects of REDs on athlete health and performance, education and promotion are needed to increase awareness among sports physicians and sports professionals.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

With recent advances in adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy, efficacy and toxicity screening have become essential for developing gene therapeutic drugs for retinal diseases. Retinal organoids from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) offer a more accessible and reproducible human test platform for evaluating AAV-based gene therapy.In this study, hPSCs were differentiated into retinal organoids composed of various types of retinal cells. The transduction efficiencies of AAV2 and AAV8, which are widely used in clinical trials of inherited retinal diseases, were analyzed using retinal organoids. These results suggest that retinal organoids derived from hPSCs serve as suitable screening platforms owing to their diverse retinal cell types and similarity to the human retina. In summary, we propose an optimal stepwise protocol that includes the generation of retinal organoids and analysis of AAV transduction efficacy, providing a comprehensive approach for evaluating AAV-based gene therapy for retinal diseases.