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.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effect of treatment for great saphenous vein incompetence with a fourth-generation 1940 nm laser with radial fiber and catheter directed foam sclerotherapy (CDFS) without a tumescent simultaneously. The procedure was termed laser assisted sclerotherapy (LAST). It is a kind of thermochemical ablation. Methods: From January 1 to June 30, 2023, 86 GSV cases from 50 patients who underwent LAST at Cheongmac hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study. Endogenous laser ablation (EVLA) was performed in the order of accessary vein, tributaries and truncal vein and then followed by CDFS which was performed with a 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS) mixed with CO 2 gas at a ratio of 1:4. The degree of pain was measured after procedure at 2 hours after the procedure. Follow-up was conducted at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months. Results: Three of the 86 GSV observed for >6 months showed mild reflux. According to size and number of ablated vessels, various energy level was needed. Three percent STS was used 4.5±0.4 cc and operation time per GSV was about 8±2 minutes. The VAS score was 2.5±0.6 at 2 hours after surgery. The closure rate was 100% at 6 months. Symptoms improved after 6 months in all patients (6.2±1.2 to 0.9±0.2). Conclusion LAST showed a good closure rate in the early midterm follow up period. Ablation was possible with less energy compared with EVLA and the pain index was lower at the second hour after procedure.

Purpose: To evaluate the refractive outcomes after ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) combined with phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation (triple procedure) in the South Korean population. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 37 eyes of 36 patients who underwent the UT-DSAEK triple procedure between 2012 and 2021 in a single tertiary hospital. Preoperative and postoperative refractive outcomes and endothelial parameters at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were observed. Results: At the final postoperative 12-month period, the average best-corrected visual acuity was 0.4 ± 0.5 in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution. The mean endothelial cell density at 12 months was 1,841.92 ± 731.24 cells/mm2, indicating no significant endothelial cell loss compared to the baseline (p = 0.128). The mean postoperative central corneal thickness at 12 months was 597.41 ± 86.26 μm. The postoperative mean absolute error at 12 months was 0.96 ± 0.89 diopters (D) and mean error was 0.89 ± 0.97 D. Conclusions The results of our South Korean cohort study on UT-DSAEK triple surgery showed favorable and safe outcomes. Regardless of graft thickness, it should be noted that a hyperopic shift of 1.00 to 2.00 D needs to be considered in the case of UT-DSAEK triple surgery.

Purpose: In the present study, we determined the prevalence of obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), hyposecretory MGD, grossly normal MG, and hypersecretory MGD in patients with dry eye syndrome using lipid layer thickness (LLT) and MG dropout. Methods: Eighty-eight patients with dry eye syndrome were included in the study. Patients were categorized into four groups according to the LLT and weighted total meiboscore. The proportion of patients in each group was calculated. The age, sex, Ocular Surface Disease Index, LLT, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, cornea stain, weighted total meiboscore, expressibility, and quality of meibum were compared between the four groups. Results: Fifteen eyes (17.0%) had obstructive MGD, two eyes (2.3%) had hyposecretory MGD, 40 eyes (45.5%) had grossly normal MG, and 17 eyes (19.3%) had hypersecretory MGD. The obstructive MGD group was younger than the grossly normal MG group. In obstructive MGD, the ratio of men to women was higher than that of the other groups. However, Ocular Surface Disease Index, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, and corneal stain did not show statistically significant differences between the four groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was worse than those of the other groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was poor than those of the obstructive and hypersecretory MGD group. Conclusions This categorization was expected to help determine the best treatment method for dry eye syndrome, according to the MG status.

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.

Most cases of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) occur without a specific identifiable cause, although vascular factors may serve as potential etiological contributors. Silent infarction refers to ischemic changes observed on imaging studies without accompanying clinical symptoms; however, this condition is clinically significant owing to the increased risk of future stroke. We report a case of left-sided SSNHL accompanied by dizziness in a 62-year-old male patient who was diagnosed with left pontine infarction without any other neurological symptoms. The cochlea and pons receive blood supply from the anterior inferior cerebellar artery; the cochlea lacks collateral vessels and is therefore susceptible to fluctuations in blood flow. This case report provides evidence to support the vascular hypothesis as the etiology underlying SSNHL

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.

Background and Objectives: Dizziness has diverse underlying causes, so the diagnosis is challenging especially in the emergency room. The aim of this study is to identify clinical characteristics of patients’ complaints of dizziness in the emergency room.Subjects and Method We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 10367 patients who visited the emergency room with the chief complaint of dizziness from January 2016 to December 2020. Patients’ clinical information including age, sex, final diagnoses, consulting departments, treatment results and seasonal incidences were thoroughly assessed. Results: Of the total patients who visited the emergency room, 4.64% complained of dizziness. The mean age of patients was 57.6 years old. The most common age group was over 70’s (28.1%). There were 6322 (61.1%) female patients, while 4035 (38.9%) were male patients. Nearly half 4932 (47.6%) of the patients were managed by the emergency department, followed by 3204, who were managed by the department of otolaryngorhinology (30.9%), and 1166 (11.2%) managed by the neurology department. The dizziness was classified as peripheral vertigo (33.8%), nonspecific dizziness (27.4%), medical conditions (13.9%), central dizziness (11.0%), cardiac dizziness (6.2%), and other miscellaneous causes of trauma, neoplasm and psychogenic causes (7.7%). In peripheral vertigo, the incidence of BPPV, vestibular neuritis and Meniere’s disease were 23.5%, 8.8% and 0.6%, respectively. Conclusion Peripheral vertigo accounted for the majority for the patients with chief complaints of dizziness in the emergency room. As diverse medical conditions may cause dizziness, specialized departments have to be involved in the diagnostic process of dizziness.