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 the effectiveness of an instrument devised for slit-lamp examination of donor corneas suspended in preservation medium. Methods: The study examined two donor corneas received at Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital in February 2023 and March 2023. The instrument has three main components: a plastic holder to hold the preservation medium bottle, a cube with a mirror for reflecting the slit beam, and a stand to attach the device to the slit-lamp. Using the instrument, the donor corneas were examined via slit-lamp: microscopy with the endothelium facing upward and downward. Specular microscopy and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) were also performed on the preserved donor corneas. Results: Slit-lamp examination of donor corneas in preservation medium using the instrument showed overall corneal buttoning and optical sections of the donor cornea. Using specular reflection and retroillumination, the endothelial layer was partially visible. However, specular microscopy and anterior segment OCT could not examine the donor cornea in preservation medium using the instrument. Conclusions The devised instrument facilitates slit-lamp examination of donor corneas in preservation medium, enabling a qualitative assessment of donor corneas before corneal transplantation surgery.

Objective: To develop and validate a preoperative risk score incorporating carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CT, and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18F-FDG) PET/CT variables to predict recurrence-free survival (RFS) after upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Materials and Methods: Patients with resectable PDAC who underwent upfront surgery between 2014 and 2017 (development set) or between 2018 and 2019 (test set) were retrospectively evaluated. In the development set, a risk-scoring system was developed using the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, including variables associated with RFS. In the test set, the performance of the risk score was evaluated using the Harrell C-index and compared with that of the postoperative pathological tumor stage. Results: A total of 529 patients, including 335 (198 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 64 ± 9 years) and 194 (103 male; mean age, 66 ± 9 years) patients in the development and test sets, respectively, were evaluated. The risk score included five variables predicting RFS: tumor size (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29 per 1 cm increment; P < 0.001), maximal standardized uptake values of tumor ≥ 5.2 (HR, 1.29; P = 0.06), suspicious regional lymph nodes (HR, 1.43; P = 0.02), possible distant metastasis on 18F-FDG PET/CT (HR, 2.32; P = 0.03), and CA 19-9 (HR, 1.02 per 100 U/mL increment; P = 0.002). In the test set, the risk score showed good performance in predicting RFS (C-index, 0.61), similar to that of the pathologic tumor stage (C-index, 0.64; P = 0.17). Conclusion The proposed risk score based on preoperative CA 19-9, CT, and 18F-FDG PET/CT variables may have clinical utility in selecting high-risk patients with resectable PDAC.

Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Korea, need remains for pangenotypic regimens that can be used in the presence of hepatic impairment, comorbidities, or prior treatment failure. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir for 12 weeks in HCV-infected Korean adults. Methods: This Phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study included 2 cohorts. In Cohort 1, participants with HCV genotype 1 or 2 and who were treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with interferon-based treatments, received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir 400/100 mg/day. In Cohort 2, HCV genotype 1 infected individuals who previously received an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen ≥ 4 weeks received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir 400/100/100 mg/day. Decompensated cirrhosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary endpoint was SVR12, defined as HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL 12 weeks following treatment. Results: Of 53 participants receiving sofosbuvir–velpatasvir, 52 (98.1%) achieved SVR12. The single participant who did not achieve SVR12 experienced an asymptomatic Grade 3 ASL/ALT elevation on day 15 and discontinued treatment. The event resolved without intervention. All 33 participants (100%) treated with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir achieved SVR 12. Overall, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir were safe and well tolerated. Three participants (5.6%) in Cohort 1 and 1 participant (3.0%) in Cohort 2 had serious adverse events, but none were considered treatment-related. No deaths or grade 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir or sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir was safe and resulted in high SVR12 rates in Korean HCV patients.

Objective: To investigate the imaging characteristics of large duct pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LD-PDAC) on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients with LD-PDAC (63.2 ± 9.7 years) were retrospectively evaluated. Tumor morphology on CT and MRI (predominantly solid mass vs. solid mass with prominent cysts vs. predominantly cystic mass) was evaluated.Additionally, the visibility, quantity, shape (oval vs. branching vs. irregular), and MRI signal intensity of neoplastic cysts within the LD-PDAC were investigated. The radiological diagnoses rendered for LD-PDAC in radiology reports were reviewed. Results: LD-PDAC was more commonly observed as a solid mass with prominent cysts (45.7% [16/35] on CT and 37.1% [13/35] on MRI) or a predominantly cystic mass (20.0% [7/35] on CT and 40.0% [14/35] on MRI) and less commonly as a predominantly solid mass on CT (34.3% [12/35]) and MRI (22.9% [8/35]). The tumor morphology on imaging was significantly associated with the size of the cancer gland on histopathological examination (P = 0.020 [CT] and 0.013 [MRI]). Neoplastic cysts were visible in 88.6% (31/35) and 91.4% (32/35) of the LD-PDAC cases on CT and MRI, respectively. The cysts appeared as branching (51.6% [16/35] on CT and 59.4% [19/35] on MRI) or oval shapes (45.2% [14/35] on CT and 31.2% [10/35] on MRI) with fluid-like MRI signal intensity. In the radiology reports, 10 LD-PDAC cases (28.6%) were misinterpreted as diseases other than typical PDAC, particularly intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Conclusion LD-PDAC frequently appears as a solid mass with prominent cysts or as a predominantly cystic mass on CT and MRI. Radiologists should be familiar with the imaging features of LD-PDAC to avoid misdiagnosis.

Acquired fluconazole resistance (FR) in bloodstream infection (BSI) isolates of Candida albicans is rare. We investigated the FR mechanisms and clinical features of 14 fluconazole non-susceptible (FNS; FR and fluconazole-susceptible dose-dependent) BSI isolates of C. albicans recovered from Korean multicenter surveillance studies during 2006–2021. Mutations causing amino acid substitutions (AASs) in the drug-target gene ERG11 and the FR-associated transcription factor genes TAC1 , MRR1, and UPC2 of the 14 FNS isolates were compared with those of 12 fluconazole-susceptible isolates. Of the 14 FNS isolates, eight and seven had Erg11p (K143R, F145L, or G464S) and Tac1p (T225A, R673L, A736T, or A736V) AASs, respectively, which were previously described in FR isolates. Novel Erg11p, Tac1p, and Mrr1p AASs were observed in two, four, and one FNS isolates, respectively. Combined Erg11p and Tac1p AASs were observed in seven FNS isolates. None of the FR-associated Upc2p AASs were detected. Of the 14 patients, only one had previous azole exposure, and the 30-day mortality rate was 57.1% (8/14). Our data show that Erg11p and Tac1p AASs are likely to contribute to FR in C. albicans BSI isolates in Korea and that most FNS C. albicans BSIs develop without azole exposure.

Purpose: As pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) is a challenging anastomosis, an education program is needed to train young surgeons to perform PJ. This study evaluated the effects of simulation-based training of open PJ using pancreas and intestine silicone models. Methods: Five videos pancreatobiliary clinical fellows who did not perform PJ participated in this study. After watching the master video created by a senior pancreatobiliary surgeon, each trainee performed the PJ using silicone models and recorded them 10 times using a video camera. Of these videos, 5 were randomly duplicated due to the validation of the scoring system. The scoring system developed consisted of 20 scores. Three pancreatobiliary professors scored their performance by watching videos. Results: The mean procedure time of the 5 trainees was 25.4 minutes (range, 23.5–27.3 minutes) in the first video and 15.8 minutes (range, 13.8–19.1 minutes) in the 10th video. The mean score was 12.6 (range, 5–19) and 18.3 (range, 15–20) in the first and 10th videos, respectively. The scores were similar among the duplicated videos for each supervisor. Conclusion This education system would help pancreatobiliary trainees to overcome learning curves efficiently without ethical issues related to animal models or direct practice to human patients.