Background: and Purpose The pain lateralization in cluster headache (CH) may be related to the asymmetry in the functions of the brain hemispheres. The right-sided dominance of pain in CH has been found inconsistently across studies, and so we aimed to characterize this and identify the factors influencing pain lateralization during current and previous bouts. Methods: This study enrolled 227 patients from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry between October 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the side of pain during current and previous bouts, demographic features, and clinical characteristics, including handedness. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the side of pain. Results: The 227 patients with CH included 131 (57.7%) with right-sided pain and 86 (37.9%) with left-sided pain during the current bout (p<0.001). The 189 patients with previous bouts of CH included 86.8% who consistently reported the same side of pain throughout multiple bouts (side-locked pain), with a higher prevalence of pain on the right than the left side (55.0% vs. 31.7%, p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=1.045, p=0.031) and shorter CH attacks (OR=0.992, p=0.017) were associated with left-side-locked pain. However, handedness was not associated with the lateralization of leftside-locked pain. Conclusions This study has confirmed the predominance of right-sided pain throughout multiple CH bouts. We found that higher age at diagnosis and shorter CH attacks were associated with left-side-locked pain, suggesting that certain clinical factors are associated with the pain laterality. However, the underlying mechanisms linking these factors to lateralized pain remain unclear and therefore require further investigation.

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.

Background: and Purpose The pain lateralization in cluster headache (CH) may be related to the asymmetry in the functions of the brain hemispheres. The right-sided dominance of pain in CH has been found inconsistently across studies, and so we aimed to characterize this and identify the factors influencing pain lateralization during current and previous bouts. Methods: This study enrolled 227 patients from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry between October 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the side of pain during current and previous bouts, demographic features, and clinical characteristics, including handedness. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the side of pain. Results: The 227 patients with CH included 131 (57.7%) with right-sided pain and 86 (37.9%) with left-sided pain during the current bout (p<0.001). The 189 patients with previous bouts of CH included 86.8% who consistently reported the same side of pain throughout multiple bouts (side-locked pain), with a higher prevalence of pain on the right than the left side (55.0% vs. 31.7%, p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=1.045, p=0.031) and shorter CH attacks (OR=0.992, p=0.017) were associated with left-side-locked pain. However, handedness was not associated with the lateralization of leftside-locked pain. Conclusions This study has confirmed the predominance of right-sided pain throughout multiple CH bouts. We found that higher age at diagnosis and shorter CH attacks were associated with left-side-locked pain, suggesting that certain clinical factors are associated with the pain laterality. However, the underlying mechanisms linking these factors to lateralized pain remain unclear and therefore require further investigation.

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.

Background: and Purpose The pain lateralization in cluster headache (CH) may be related to the asymmetry in the functions of the brain hemispheres. The right-sided dominance of pain in CH has been found inconsistently across studies, and so we aimed to characterize this and identify the factors influencing pain lateralization during current and previous bouts. Methods: This study enrolled 227 patients from the Korean Cluster Headache Registry between October 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated the side of pain during current and previous bouts, demographic features, and clinical characteristics, including handedness. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the side of pain. Results: The 227 patients with CH included 131 (57.7%) with right-sided pain and 86 (37.9%) with left-sided pain during the current bout (p<0.001). The 189 patients with previous bouts of CH included 86.8% who consistently reported the same side of pain throughout multiple bouts (side-locked pain), with a higher prevalence of pain on the right than the left side (55.0% vs. 31.7%, p<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=1.045, p=0.031) and shorter CH attacks (OR=0.992, p=0.017) were associated with left-side-locked pain. However, handedness was not associated with the lateralization of leftside-locked pain. Conclusions This study has confirmed the predominance of right-sided pain throughout multiple CH bouts. We found that higher age at diagnosis and shorter CH attacks were associated with left-side-locked pain, suggesting that certain clinical factors are associated with the pain laterality. However, the underlying mechanisms linking these factors to lateralized pain remain unclear and therefore require further investigation.

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.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Background: and Purpose Patients with cluster headache (CH) exhibit impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, there have been few studies related to the HRQoL of patients with CH from Asian backgrounds. This study aimed to determine the impact of CH on HRQoL and to identify the factors affecting HRQoL in patients with CH during cluster periods. Methods: This prospective study enrolled patients with CH from 17 headache clinics in South Korea between September 2016 and February 2021. The study aimed to determine HRQoL in patients with CH using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index and the time trade-off (TTO) method. Age- and sex-matched headache-free participants were recruited as a control group. Results: The study included 423 patients with CH who experienced a cluster period at the time. EQ-5D scores were lower in patients with CH (0.88±0.43, mean±standard deviation) than in the controls (0.99±0.33, p<0.001). The TTO method indicated that 58 (13.6%) patients with CH exhibited moderate-to-severe HRQoL deterioration. The HRQoL states in patients with CH were associated with current smoking patterns, headache severity, frequency, and duration, and scores on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), 6-item Headache Impact Test, and 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the HRQoL states in patients with CH were negatively correlated with the daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, and GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores. Conclusions Patients with CH experienced a worse quality of life during cluster periods compared with the headache-free controls, but the degree of HRQoL deterioration varied among them. The daily frequency of headaches, cluster period duration, anxiety, and depression were factors associated with HRQoL deterioration severity in patients with CH.

Background: and Purpose Oxygen treatment is the first-line acute treatment for cluster headaches (CHs), but this can be impeded by insurance coverage and oxygen-tank maintenance. Oxygen concentrators filter nitrogen from ambient air to produce oxygen-rich gas, and can therefore be an alternative to conventional oxygen therapy using a tank. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of using two home oxygen concentrators and compared them with using oral zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of CHs. Methods: Forty patients with episodic CHs in an active cluster period were enrolled in this randomized, crossover, multicenter study. Two attacks during the cluster period were treated using oxygen delivered by connecting two home oxygen concentrators, whereas the other two attacks were treated using oral zolmitriptan (5 mg) in a random sequence. The primary endpoint was substantial pain reduction (0 or 1 on a five-point rating scale from 0 to 4 points) at 15 min after treatment. Results: In total, 125 attacks among 32 patients were randomized and treated (63 attacks using oxygen and 62 using zolmitriptan) according to the study protocol. More attacks treated using oxygen reached the primary endpoint than did those treated using zolmitriptan (31.7% [20/63] vs. 12.9% [8/62], p=0.013). After 30 min, 57.1% of the patients who received oxygen and 38.7% who received zolmitriptan reported pain relief (p=0.082). All patients treated using oxygen reported an improvement in pain, and 61.3% preferred oxygen while only 9.7% preferred zolmitriptan. No adverse events occurred during the oxygen treatment. Conclusions Oxygen treatment administered using two home oxygen concentrators resulted in better pain relief than oral zolmitriptan in patients with episodic CHs. Our results suggest that home oxygen concentrators are capable of efficiently supplying oxygen in a similar manner to using an oxygen tank.