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.

Purpose: The treatment of male breast cancer (MBC) has been extrapolated from female breast cancer (FBC) because of its rarity despite their different clinicopathologic characteristics. We aimed to investigate the distribution of intrinsic subtypes based on immunohistochemistry, their clinical impact, and treatment pattern in clinical practice through a multicenter study in Korea. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 248 MBC patients from 18 institutions across the country from January 1995 to July 2016. Results: The median age of MBC patients was 63 years (range, 25 to 102 years). Among 148 intrinsic subtype classified patients, 61 (41.2%), 44 (29.7%), 29 (19.5%), and 14 (9.5%) were luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and triple-negative breast cancer, respectively. Luminal A subtype showed trends for superior survival compared to other subtypes. Most hormone receptor-positive patients (166 patients, 82.6%) received adjuvant endocrine treatment. Five-year completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with superior disease-free survival (DFS) in patients classified with an intrinsic subtype (hazard ratio [HR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.49; p=0.002) and in all patients (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; p=0.003). Conclusion Distribution of subtypes of MBC was similar to FBC and luminal type A was most common. Overall survival tended to be improved for luminal A subtype, although there was no statistical significance. Completion of adjuvant endocrine treatment was associated with prolonged DFS in intrinsic subtype classified patients. MBC patients tended to receive less treatment. MBC patients should receive standard treatment according to guidelines as FBC patients.

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.

Purpose: To establish a prospective registry for the active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PC) using the Korean Urological Oncology Society (KUOS) database and to present interim analysis. Materials and Methods: The KUOS registry of AS for PC (KUOS-AS-PC) was organized in May 2019 and comprises multiple institutions nationwide. The eligibility criteria were as follows: patients with (1) pathologically proven PC; (2) pre-biopsy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20 ng/mL; (3) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 or 2 (no cribriform pattern 4); (4) clinical T stage ≤T2c; (5) positive core ratio ≤50%; and (6) maximal cancer involvement in the core ≤50%.Detailed longitudinal clinical information, including multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and disease-specific outcomes, was recorded. Results: From May 2019 to June 2021, 296 patients were enrolled, and 284 were analyzed. The mean±standard deviation (SD) age at enrollment was 68.7±8.2 years. The median follow-up period was 11.2 months (5.9–16.8 mo). Majority of patients had pre-biopsy PSA ≤10 ng/mL (91.2%), PSA density <0.2 ng/mL 2 (79.7%), ISUP grade group 1 (94.4%), single positive core (65.7%), maximal cancer involvement in the core ≤20% (78.1%), and clinical T stage of T1c or lower (72.9%). Fifty-two (18.3%) discontinued AS for various reasons. Interventions included radical prostatectomy (80.8%), transurethral prostatectomy (5.8%), primary androgen deprivation therapy (5.8%), radiation (5.8%), and focal therapy (1.9%). The mean±SD time to intervention was 8.9±5.2 months. The reasons for discontinuation included pathologic reclassification (59.6%), patient preference (25.0%), and radiologic reclassification (9.6%). Two (4.8%) patients with pathologic Gleason score upgraded to ISUP grade group 4, no biochemical recurrence. Conclusions The KUOS established a successful prospective database of PC patients undergoing AS in Korea, named the KUOS-AS-PC registry.

Melanogenesis is the production of melanin from tyrosine by a series of enzyme-catalyzed reactions, in which tyrosinase and DOPA oxidase play key roles. The melanin content in the skin determines skin pigmentation. Abnormalities in skin pigmentation lead to various skin pigmentation disorders. Recent research has shown that the expression of EMP2 is much lower in melanoma than in normal melanocytes, but its role in melanogenesis has not yet been elucidated. Therefore, we investigated the role of EMP2 in the melanogenesis of MNT1 human melanoma cells. We examined TRP-1, TRP-2, and TYR expression levels during melanogenesis in MNT1 melanoma cells by gene silencing of EMP2. Western blot and RT-PCR results confirmed that the expression levels of TYR and TRP-2 were decreased when EMP2 expression was knocked down by EMP2 siRNA in MNT1 cells, and these changes were reversed when EMP2 was overexpressed. We verified the EMP2 gene was knocked out of the cell line (EMP2 CRISPR/Cas9) by using a CRISPR/Cas9 system and found that the expression levels of TRP-2 and TYR were significantly lower in the EMP2 CRISPR/Cas9 cell lines. Loss of EMP2 also reduced migration and invasion of MNT1 melanoma cells. In addition, the melanosome transfer from the melanocytes to keratinocytes in the EMP2 KO cells cocultured with keratinocytes was reduced compared to the cells in the control coculture group. In conclusion, these results suggest that EMP2 is involved in melanogenesis via the regulation of TRP-2 expression.

Advanced or metastatic breast cancer affects multiple organs and is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Cancer metastasis is associated with epithelial-mesenchymal metastasis (EMT). However, the specific signals that induce and regulate EMT in carcinoma cells remain unclear. PRR16/Largen is a cell size regulator that is independent of mTOR and Hippo signalling pathways. However, little is known about the role PRR16 plays in the EMT process. We found that the expression of PRR16 was increased in mesenchymal breast cancer cell lines. PRR16 overexpression induced EMT in MCF7 breast cancer cells and enhances migration and invasion. To determine how PRR16 induces EMT, the binding proteins for PRR16 were screened, revealing that PRR16 binds to Abl interactor 2 (ABI2). We then investigated whether ABI2 is involved in EMT. Gene silencing of ABI2 induces EMT, leading to enhanced migration and invasion. ABI2 is a gene that codes for a protein that interacts with ABL proto-oncogene 1 (ABL1) kinase. Therefore, we investigated whether the change in ABI2 expression affected the activation of ABL1 kinase. The knockdown of ABI2 and PRR16 overexpression increased the phosphorylation of Y412 in ABL1 kinase. Our results suggest that PRR16 may be involved in EMT by binding to ABI2 and interfering with its inhibition of ABL1 kinase. This indicates that ABL1 kinase inhibitors may be potential therapeutic agents for the treatment of PRR16-related breast cancer.

Background/Aims: To prevent the perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) from mother to child, administration of an antiviral agent during pregnancy has been attempted in women who are either hepatitis B e antigen positive or have a high viral load. In this systematic review and meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials, we analyzed the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in preventing the perinatal transmission of HBV in pregnant women who have high HBV DNA titers. Methods: Multiple comprehensive databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) were searched for studies evaluating the efficacy of TDF for the prevention of perinatal transmission of HBV. Results: Two studies (one open label study and one double blind study) were included and analyzed. Intention-to-treat analysis (527 pregnancies) showed that the preventive effect of TDF was not significant (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval[CI], 0.13 to 2.17; p = 0.38, I2 = 81%). However, the per-protocol analysis showed that TDF significantly reduced perinatal transmission (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.77; p = 0.03, I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between the TDF group and the control group with respect to maternal and fetal safety outcomes. Conclusions In pregnant women who have high HBV DNA titers, TDF can reduce the perinatal transmission from mother to child without significant adverse events.

Purpose: Use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors improved survival outcome of hormone receptor (HR) positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, including Asian population. However, Asian real-world data of palbociclib is limited. We analyzed the real-world clinical practice patterns and outcome in HR-positive, MBC Asian patients treated with palbociclib. Materials and Methods: Between April 2017 to November 2019, 169 HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor-2–negative MBC patients treated with letrozole or fulvestrant plus palbocilib were enrolled from eight institutions. Survival outcome (progression-free survival [PFS]), treatment response and toxicity profiles were analyzed. Results: Median age of letrozole plus palbociclib (145 patients, 85.8%) and fulvestrant plus palbociclib (24 patients, 14.2%) was 58 and 53.5 years, with median follow-up duration of 14.63 months (range 0.2 to 33.9 months). Median PFS (mPFS) of letrozole plus palbociclib and fulvestrant plus palbociclib was 25.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.1 to not reached) and 6.37 months (95% CI, 5.33 to not reached), comparable to previous phase 3 trials. In letrozole plus palbociclib arm, luminal A (hazard ratio, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.20 to 6.80; p=0.017) and patients with good performance (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1 [hazard ratio, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.70 to 7.96]) showed better mPFS. In fulvestrant plus palbociclib group, chemotherapy naïve patients showed better mPFS (hazard ratio, 12.51, 95% CI, 1.59 to 99.17; p=0.017). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia (letrozole 86.3%, fulvestrant 88.3%). Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first real-world data of palbociclib reported in Asia. Palbociclib showed comparable benefit to previous phase 3 trials in Asian patients during daily clinical practice.