1.Establishing Regional Aβ Cutoffs andExploring Subgroup Prevalence Across Cognitive Stages Using BeauBrain Amylo®
Seongbeom PARK ; Kyoungmin KIM ; Soyeon YOON ; Seongmi KIM ; Jehyun AHN ; Kyoung Yoon LIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Duk L. NA ; Hee Jin KIM ; Seung Hwan MOON ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Sang Won SEO ; Jaeho KIM ; Kichang KWAK
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(2):135-146
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
2.Study on the Necessity and Methodology for Enhancing Outpatient and Clinical Education in the Department of Radiology
Soo Buem CHO ; Jiwoon SEO ; Young Hwan KIM ; You Me KIM ; Dong Gyu NA ; Jieun ROH ; Kyung-Hyun DO ; Jung Hwan BAEK ; Hye Shin AHN ; Min Woo LEE ; Seunghyun LEE ; Seung Eun JUNG ; Woo Kyoung JEONG ; Hye Doo JEONG ; Bum Sang CHO ; Hwan Jun JAE ; Seon Hyeong CHOI ; Saebeom HUR ; Su Jin HONG ; Sung Il HWANG ; Auh Whan PARK ; Ji-hoon KIM
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 2025;86(1):199-200
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
3.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
4.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
		                        		
		                        			 Purpose:
		                        			Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023. 
		                        		
		                        			Materials and Methods:
		                        			The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
5.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
		                        		
		                        			
		                        			 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. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
6.Establishing Regional Aβ Cutoffs andExploring Subgroup Prevalence Across Cognitive Stages Using BeauBrain Amylo®
Seongbeom PARK ; Kyoungmin KIM ; Soyeon YOON ; Seongmi KIM ; Jehyun AHN ; Kyoung Yoon LIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Duk L. NA ; Hee Jin KIM ; Seung Hwan MOON ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Sang Won SEO ; Jaeho KIM ; Kichang KWAK
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(2):135-146
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
7.Establishing Regional Aβ Cutoffs andExploring Subgroup Prevalence Across Cognitive Stages Using BeauBrain Amylo®
Seongbeom PARK ; Kyoungmin KIM ; Soyeon YOON ; Seongmi KIM ; Jehyun AHN ; Kyoung Yoon LIM ; Hyemin JANG ; Duk L. NA ; Hee Jin KIM ; Seung Hwan MOON ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Sang Won SEO ; Jaeho KIM ; Kichang KWAK
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(2):135-146
		                        		
		                        			 Background:
		                        			and Purpose: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques are key in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with Aβ positron emission tomography imaging enabling non-invasive quantification.To address regional Aβ deposition, we developed regional Centiloid scales (rdcCL) and commercialized them through the computed tomography (CT)-based BeauBrain Amylo platform, eliminating the need for three-dimensional T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			We aimed to establish robust regional Aβ cutoffs using the commercialized BeauBrain Amylo platform and to explore the prevalence of subgroups defined by global, regional, and striatal Aβ cutoffs across cognitive stages. 
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We included 2,428 individuals recruited from the Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research project. We calculated regional Aβ cutoffs using Gaussian Mixture Modeling. Participants were classified into subgroups based on global, regional, and striatal Aβ positivity across cognitive stages (cognitively unimpaired [CU], mild cognitive impairment, and dementia of the Alzheimer’s type). 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			MRI-based and CT-based global Aβ cutoffs were highly comparable and consistent with previously reported Centiloid values. Regional cutoffs revealed both similarities and differences between MRI- and CT-based methods, reflecting modality-specific segmentation processes. Subgroups such as global(−)regional(+) were more frequent in non-dementia stages, while global(+)striatal(−) was primarily observed in CU individuals. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			Our study established robust regional Aβ cutoffs using a CT-based rdcCL method and demonstrated its clinical utility in classifying amyloid subgroups across cognitive stages. These findings highlight the importance of regional Aβ quantification in understanding amyloid pathology and its implications for biomarker-guided diagnosis and treatment in AD. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
8.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
9.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
		                        		
		                        			 Purpose:
		                        			Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023. 
		                        		
		                        			Materials and Methods:
		                        			The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys. 
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively. 
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
10.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
		                        		
		                        			
		                        			 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. 
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
            
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail