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.

Objectives: Tic disorders are highly heritable; however, growing evidence suggests that environmental factors play a significant role in their pathogenesis. Studies on these factors have been inconsistent, with conflicting results. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the associations of pre- and perinatal exposure to Tourette syndrome (TS) or chronic tic disorders (CTD) in Korean school-aged children. Methods: This case-control study used data from a large prospective cohort study. The primary outcome was TS/CTD diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) criteria and Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version-Korean Version. Demographic, pre-, and perinatal information was obtained from the maternal questionnaires. Data between the TS/CTD and control groups were compared using the chi-squared or Student’s t-test, as appropriate. Two-step logistic regression analyses were used to test the association between TS/CTD and pre- and perinatal risk factors. Results: We included of 223 children (78 with TS/CTD and 145 controls). Significant differences in the demographic data between the two groups were observed. The male sex ratio, mean parental age, parental final education level, and family history of tics were included as confounders. In the final adjusted multivariable model, TS/CTD was significantly associated with antiemetic exposure during pregnancy (odds ratio [OR]=16.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49–185.22, p=0.02) and medically assisted reproduction (OR=7.89, 95% CI 2.28–27.28, p=0.01). Conclusion Antiemetic exposure and medically assisted reproduction are significantly associated with the risk of TS/CTD. These results should be replicated in future prospective and gene-by-environment studies.

Objective: This study assessed the reliability and validity of the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics–9 items (SAVE-9) and Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics–6 items (SAVE-6) scales for measuring viral anxiety among firefighters during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic. Methods: An online survey was conducted among 304 firefighters assigned in Gyeonggi-do. The SAVE-9 scale, initially developed for healthcare workers, was adapted for firefighters. We compared it with the SAVE-6 scale designed for the general population among the firefighters sample. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to explore the factor structure of both scales. Internal consistency reliability was checked using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega. Convergent validity was assessed in accordance with the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 scales. Results: The SAVE-9 scale demonstrated a Cronbach alpha of 0.880, while the SAVE-6 scale yielded an alpha of 0.874. CFA indicated good model fits for both SAVE-9 and SAVE-6 scales among firefighters sample. The SAVE-9 and SAVE-6 comparably measures viral anxiety of firefighters. Conclusion Both of the SAVE-9 and SAVE-6 scales are reliable and valid instruments for assessing viral anxiety among firefighters during the pandemic.

Objective: This study aimed to explore the feasibility of cognitive-behavioral model hypochondriasis regarding coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) among firefighters. In addition, we examined the possible role of their grief reaction and intolerance of uncertainty in the model of COVID-related hypochondriasis. Methods: An anonymous online survey was done on October 27–28, 2022, among firefighters who witnessed people’s death. Demographic characteristics were collected, and their psychological states were assessed using rating scales such as the Obsession with COVID-19 Scale (OCS), Coronavirus Reassurance-Seeking Behaviors Scale (CRBS), Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS), and Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale–12 (IUS-12). Results: Their OCS score was expected by the CRBS (β=0.30, p<0.001), FCV-19S (β=0.10, p<0.001), PGS (β=0.29, p<0.001), and IUS12 (β=0.04, p=0.024) (F=134.5, p<0.001). The COVID-related cognitive-behavioral model of hypochondriasis was feasible among firefighters who witnessed people’s death. Their pandemic grief reaction and intolerance of uncertainty directly influenced their preoccupation with coronavirus, and viral anxiety and coronavirus reassurance-seeking behavior mediated the relationship. Conclusion Firefighters’ viral anxiety and coronavirus reassurance-seeking behavior mediated the influence of pandemic grief reaction or intolerance of uncertainty on the preoccupation with coronavirus.

In this review, we provide information about the etiology, risk factors, and clinical presentations of maltreatment to help clinicians better understand child abuse and neglect. Child maltreatment is a major global health challenge that can result in severe consequences. Abused and neglected children are likely to develop psychiatric disorders, such as major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Understanding child maltreatment is expected to prevent and reduce victimization in children, adolescents, and their families.

Objective: Underconnectivity in the resting brain is not consistent in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, it is known that the functional connectivity of the default mode network is mainly decreased in childhood ASD. This study investigated the brain network topology as the changes in the connection strength and network efficiency in childhood ASD, including the early developmental stages. Methods: In this study, 31 ASD children aged 2–11 years were compared with 31 age and sex-matched children showing typical development. We explored the functional connectivity based on graph filtration by assessing the single linkage distance and global and nodal efficiencies using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. The relationship between functional connectivity and clinical scores was also analyzed. Results: Underconnectivities within the posterior default mode network subregions and between the inferior parietal lobule and inferior frontal/superior temporal regions were observed in the ASD group. These areas significantly correlated with the clinical phenotypes. The global, local, and nodal network efficiencies were lower in children with ASD than in those with typical development. In the preschool-age children (2–6 years) with ASD, the anterior-posterior connectivity of the default mode network and cerebellar connectivity were reduced. Conclusion The observed topological reorganization, underconnectivity, and disrupted efficiency in the default mode network subregions and social function-related regions could be significant biomarkers of childhood ASD.

Purpose: Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based tumor panel testing has been reimbursed by the Korean government since 2017. We evaluated the use of NGS-based tumor panel testing in real-world clinical practice, focusing on molecular profiling (MP)-guided breast cancer treatment. Methods: A total of 137 breast cancer patients underwent NGS panel testing between December 2017 and July 2020 at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUBH).Samples from patients were profiled using an in-house SNUBH pan-cancer panel. Sixty-four patients were profiled on SNUBH Pan_Cancer v1.0, targeting 89 genes, while 73 patients were profiled on SNUBH Pan_Cancer v2.0, targeting 546 genes. Results: Breast cancer subtypes included hormone receptor+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)− (n = 87), triple-negative (n = 44), and HER2+ (n = 6). Most patients had locally advanced or metastatic cancers (92%). Approximately 92% (126/137) of the patients had significant genomic alterations (tiers I and II), and 62% (85/137) had targetable genomic alterations. The most common targetable genomic alterations were PIK3CA (39%) and ESR1 mutations (9%), followed by ERBB2 (7%), PTEN (7%), BRCA2 (6%), and BRCA1 mutations (4%). Of the 81 patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer with targetable genomic alterations, 6 (7.4%) received MP-guided treatments, including PARP inhibitor (n = 4), ERBB2-directed therapy (n = 1), and PI3K inhibitor (n = 1). Among these 6 patients, 4 participated in clinical trials, 1 underwent treatment at their own expense, and 1 received drugs through an expanded access program. The remaining 66 patients (81%) with targetable genomic alteration did not receive MP-guided treatment due to lack of matched drugs and/or clinical trials, poor performance status, and/or financial burden. Conclusion NGS panel testing allowed MP-guided treatment in only 4.7% (6/127) of patients with advanced breast cancer in a real-world setting. The availability of matched drugs is critical for the realistic implementation of personalized treatment.