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.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess exposure to traumatic events, knowledge and attitudes concerning post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the level of resilience among nurses and paramedics working in emergency departments. Methods: Data were collected from May 22 to June 12, 2022, using a self-administered survey questionnaire. The participants comprised 135 nurses and 80 paramedics working in emergency departments. The collected data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, a t-test, and an analysis of variance with Scheffé’s test. Results: Compared with emergency room nurses, paramedics were more positive about the government’s spending on job opportunities for people with PTSD. There were no significant differences in attitude regarding government strategies and people with PTSD between nurses and paramedics. Paramedics had higher scores on the effective treatment for PTSD, while emergency room nurses showed higher scores on effective psychotherapy. General knowledge of PTSD differed according to sex (t=-2.33, p=.021) and education level (F=3.21, p=.042). Resilience scores differed significantly according to sex (t=2.02, p=.045), education level (F=4.10, p=.018), self-reported economic state (F=10.34, p<.001), and self-reported health (F=11.57, p<.001). Conclusion The findings support that emergency department nurses and paramedics are in need of self-care programs to support their mental health and indicate that intervention programs should be developed to enhance resilience in emergency department professionals.

Purpose: To lessen the physical, cosmetic, and psychological burden of donors, purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has been proposed as an ideal method for living donors. Our study aimed to prospectively compare the effect of PLDH and 2 other types of open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) on postoperative pain and recovery. Methods: Sixty donors scheduled to undergo donor hepatectomy between March 2015 and November 2017 were included.Donors were divided into 3 groups by surgical technique: OLDH with a subcostal incision (n = 20), group S; OLDH with an upper midline incision (n = 20), group M; and PLDH (n = 20), group L. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain and analgesic requirement during postoperative day (POD) 3. Other variables regarding postoperative recovery were also analyzed. Results: Although pain relief during POD 3, assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) score and analgesic requirement, was similar among the 3 groups, group L showed lower VAS scores and opioid requirements than group M. Moreover, group L was associated with a rapid postoperative recovery evidenced by the shorter hospital length of stay and more frequent return to normal activity on POD 30. Conclusion This pilot study failed to verify the hypothesis that PLDH reduces postoperative pain. PLDH did not reduce postoperative pain but showed faster recovery than OLDH.

Purpose: To lessen the physical, cosmetic, and psychological burden of donors, purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has been proposed as an ideal method for living donors. Our study aimed to prospectively compare the effect of PLDH and 2 other types of open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) on postoperative pain and recovery. Methods: Sixty donors scheduled to undergo donor hepatectomy between March 2015 and November 2017 were included.Donors were divided into 3 groups by surgical technique: OLDH with a subcostal incision (n = 20), group S; OLDH with an upper midline incision (n = 20), group M; and PLDH (n = 20), group L. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain and analgesic requirement during postoperative day (POD) 3. Other variables regarding postoperative recovery were also analyzed. Results: Although pain relief during POD 3, assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) score and analgesic requirement, was similar among the 3 groups, group L showed lower VAS scores and opioid requirements than group M. Moreover, group L was associated with a rapid postoperative recovery evidenced by the shorter hospital length of stay and more frequent return to normal activity on POD 30. Conclusion This pilot study failed to verify the hypothesis that PLDH reduces postoperative pain. PLDH did not reduce postoperative pain but showed faster recovery than OLDH.

Combination treatment with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) and venetoclax is being used increasingly in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).Venetoclax with HMAs has been reported to be associated with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in AML patients with high leukemic burden. We present a case of an elderly AML patient with low leukemic burden who developed TLS while receiving venetoclax and azacitidine (AZA). A 74-year-old man with newly diagnosed AML with NPM1 mutation received combination therapy with venetoclax and AZA in an outpatient clinic. Within 12 hours after starting venetoclax and AZA, the patient was admitted to the emergency room with fever, general weakness, and laboratory findings consistent with TLS. Based on our results, we recommend monitoring at the start of the treatment with venetoclax and HMAs to prevent and control TLS regardless of the leukemic burden and favorable genetic ris

Purpose: This study explored nursing students’ experiences of attending clinical practicum courses in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic era, focusing on their confidence in clinical competency and job readiness. Methods: The data for this study were collected using online questionnaires that were uploaded to a free online survey website and distributed via a link to the survey to 334 nursing students attending four-year nursing colleges at four national universities. Data analysis was done with descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and ANOVA. Results: The participants were mostly female (83.2%) college seniors (78.1%). About 60% of the participants practiced between 40% to 100% of their clinical practicum hours in alternative ways. Almost a third of the participants reported that they were not ready for a job (30.2%). However, participants’ confidence in clinical competency and job readiness was not related to the rate of alternative practice, but rather to both achievement of educational outcomes and satisfaction in the nursing practicum. Conclusion Due to COVID-19, it is evident that effective and efficient materials and ways of delivering clinical courses are constantly to be sought and developed. In particular, recently graduated nurses who experienced abrupt and considerable alterations in their clinical practicum courses due to COVID-19 are in need of attention while they strive to make clinical adaptations.