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.

Background/Aims: The use of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is recommended for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Stent-related adverse events might differ according to the position of the stent through the ampulla of Vater (AOV). We retrospectively evaluated SEMS patency and adverse events according to the position of the SEMS. Methods: In total, 280 patients who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement due to malignant distal biliary obstruction were analyzed retrospectively. Suprapapillary and transpapillary SEMS insertions were performed on 51 patients and 229 patients, respectively. Results: Between the suprapapillary group (SPG) and transpapillary group (TPG), the stent patency period was not significantly different (median [95% confidence interval]: 107 days [82.3 to 131.7] vs 120 days [99.3 to 140.7], p=0.559). There was also no significant difference in the rate of adverse events. In subgroup analysis, the stent patency for an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV was found to be significantly shorter than that for an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV in the SPG (64 days [0 to 160.4] vs 127 days [82.0 to 171.9], p<0.001) and TPG (87 days [52.5 to 121.5] vs 130 [97.0 to 162.9], p<0.001). Patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV in both groups had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion (SPG: 40.0% vs 4.9%, p=0.002; TPG: 28.6% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) than patients with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV. Conclusions The SPG and TPG showed similar results in terms of stent patency and rate of adverse events. However, patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion with shorter stent patency than those with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV, regardless of stent position.

Background: Although the evidence of treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed rapidly, little is known about the patterns of potential pharmacological treatment during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and the risk factors for ineffective prescription. Methods: Using claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance System, this retrospective cohort study included admission episodes for COVID-19 from February to December 2020. Ineffective antiviral prescriptions for COVID-19 were defined as lopinavir/ ritonavir (LPN/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prescribed after July 2020, according to the revised National Institute of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Factors associated with ineffective prescriptions, including patient and hospital factors, were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the 15,723 COVID-19 admission episodes from February to June 2020, 4,183 (26.6%) included prescriptions of LPN/r, and 3,312 (21.1%) included prescriptions of HCQ.Of the 48,843 admission episodes from July to December 2020, after the guidelines were revised, 2,258 (4.6%) and 182 (0.4%) included prescriptions of ineffective LPN/r and HCQ, respectively. Patient factors independently associated with ineffective antiviral prescription were older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per 10-year increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14–1.20) and severe condition with an oxygen requirement (aOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.24–2.77). The prescription of ineffective antiviral drugs was highly prevalent in primary and nursing hospitals (aOR, 40.58; 95% CI, 31.97–51.50), public sector hospitals (aOR, 15.61; 95% CI, 12.76–19.09), and regions in which these drugs were highly prescribed before July 2020 (aOR, 10.65; 95% CI, 8.26–13.74). Conclusion Ineffective antiviral agents were prescribed to a substantial number of patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. Treatment with these ineffective drugs tended to be prolonged in severely ill patients and in primary and public hospitals.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Background/Aims: The eradication success rate of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection with a first-line standard triple therapy (STT) has been decreasing in Korea. However, treatment outcomes of H. pylori infection in Yeongdong, Gangwon Province have been scarcely reported. This study aimed to investigate the treatment outcomes of H. pylori infection in a single tertiary care hospital with regional characteristics. Materials and Methods: From July 2018 to June 2019, a total of 592 patients who underwent STT consisting of a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin for 7 to 14 days as a first-line H. pylori eradication therapy were included. Demographic data and treatment outcomes were retrospectively reviewed using medical records. Results: The median age of 592 patients was 58 years (range 23 to 86) and 329 patients (55.6%) were men. The indication for eradication therapy included chronic atrophic gastritis (57.9%), peptic ulcer disease (19.6%), and gastric neoplasm after endoscopic resection (5.9%). Most patients (92.2%) received a 7-day course of STT. Eradication rate of STT was 64.0% (379/592). Rescue therapy was performed in 146 patients, and the final eradication rate reached 85.6% (507/592). Conclusions Eradication rate of STT in Yeongdong area of Gangwon Province was unsatisfactory, warranting the consideration of a first-line eradication regimen other than STT.