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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

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.

Differences in demographics, medical expertise, and patient healthcare resources across countries have led to significant variations in guidelines. In light of these differences, in this review, we aimed to explore and compare the most recent updates to gastric cancer treatment from five guidelines that are available in English. These English-version guidelines, which have been recently published and updated for journal publication, include those published in South Korea in 2024, Japan in 2021, China in 2023, the United States in 2024, and Europe in 2024. The South Korean and Japanese guidelines provide a higher proportion of content to endoscopic and surgical treatments, reflecting their focus on minimally invasive techniques, function-preserving surgeries, and systemic therapy. The Chinese guidelines provide recommendations addressing not only surgical approaches but also perioperative chemotherapy and palliative systemic therapy. Meanwhile, in the United States and European guidelines, a higher proportion of the content is dedicated to perioperative and palliative systemic therapy, aligning with their approaches to advanced-stage disease management.All guidelines address surgical and systemic chemotherapy treatments; however, the proportion and emphasis of content vary based on the patient distribution and treatment approaches specific to each country. With emerging research findings on gastric cancer treatment worldwide, the national guidelines are being progressively revised and updated.Understanding the commonalities and differences among national guidelines, along with the underlying evidence, can provide valuable insights into the treatment of gastric cancer.

People with obesity maintain low levels of inflammation; therefore, their exposure to foreign antigens can trigger an excessive immune response. In people with obesity or allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), symptoms are exacerbated by a reduction in the number of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and IL-10/TGF-β–modified macrophages (M2 macrophages) at the inflammatory site. Benefits of intermittent fasting (IF) have been demonstrated for many diseases; however, the immune responses regulated by macrophages and CD4+ T cells in obese ACD animal models are poorly understood. Therefore, we investigated whether IF suppresses inflammatory responses and upregulates the generation of Tregs and M2 macrophages in experimental ACD animal models of obese mice. The IF regimen relieved various ACD symptoms in inflamed and adipose tissues. We showed that the IF regimen upregulates Treg generation in a TGF-β-dependent manner and induces CD4+ T cell hypo-responsiveness. IF-M2 macrophages, which strongly express TGF-β and inhibit CD4+ T cell proliferation, directly regulated Treg differentiation from CD4+ T cells. These results indicate that the IF regimen enhances the TGF-β-producing ability of M2 macrophages and that the development of Tregs keeps mice healthy against ACD exacerbated by obesity. Therefore, the IF regimen may ameliorate inflammatory immune disorders caused by obesity.

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: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is characterized by fat accumulation in the liver. MASLD encompasses both steatosis and MASH. Since MASH can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer, steatosis and MASH must be distinguished during patient treatment. Here, we investigate the genomes, epigenomes, and transcriptomes of MASLD patients to identify signature gene set for more accurate tracking of MASLD progression. Methods: Biopsy-tissue and blood samples from patients with 134 MASLD, comprising 60 steatosis and 74 MASH patients were performed omics analysis. SVM learning algorithm were used to calculate most predictive features. Linear regression was applied to find signature gene set that distinguish the stage of MASLD and to validate their application into independent cohort of MASLD. Results: After performing WGS, WES, WGBS, and total RNA-seq on 134 biopsy samples from confirmed MASLD patients, we provided 1,955 MASLD-associated features, out of 3,176 somatic variant callings, 58 DMRs, and 1,393 DEGs that track MASLD progression. Then, we used a SVM learning algorithm to analyze the data and select the most predictive features. Using linear regression, we identified a signature gene set capable of differentiating the various stages of MASLD and verified it in different independent cohorts of MASLD and a liver cancer cohort. Conclusions We identified a signature gene set (i.e., CAPG, HYAL3, WIPI1, TREM2, SPP1, and RNASE6) with strong potential as a panel of diagnostic genes of MASLD-associated disease.

Background: Worldwide, sepsis is the leading cause of death in hospitals. If mortality rates in patients with sepsis can be predicted early, medical resources can be allocated efficiently. We constructed machine learning (ML) models to predict the mortality of patients with sepsis in a hospital emergency department. Methods: This study prospectively collected nationwide data from an ongoing multicenter cohort of patients with sepsis identified in the emergency department. Patients were enrolled from 19 hospitals between September 2019 and December 2020. For acquired data from 3,657 survivors and 1,455 deaths, six ML models (logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost], light gradient boosting machine, and categorical boosting [CatBoost]) were constructed using fivefold cross-validation to predict mortality. Through these models, 44 clinical variables measured on the day of admission were compared with six sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) components (PaO 2 /FIO 2 [PF], platelets (PLT), bilirubin, cardiovascular, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and creatinine).The confidence interval (CI) was obtained by performing 10,000 repeated measurements via random sampling of the test dataset. All results were explained and interpreted using Shapley’s additive explanations (SHAP). Results: Of the 5,112 participants, CatBoost exhibited the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.800 (95% CI, 0.756–0.840) using clinical variables. Using the SOFA components for the same patient, XGBoost exhibited the highest AUC of 0.678 (95% CI, 0.626–0.730). As interpreted by SHAP, albumin, lactate, blood urea nitrogen, and international normalization ratio were determined to significantly affect the results. Additionally, PF and PLTs in the SOFA component significantly influenced the prediction results. Conclusion Newly established ML-based models achieved good prediction of mortality in patients with sepsis. Using several clinical variables acquired at the baseline can provide more accurate results for early predictions than using SOFA components. Additionally, the impact of each variable was identified.