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: This study aimed to evaluate and optimize microbial DNA extraction methods from urine, a non-invasive sample source, to enhance DNA quality, purity, and reliability for urinary microbiome research and biomarker discovery in bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: A total of 302 individuals (258 with genitourinary cancers and 44 with benign urologic diseases) participated in this study. Urine samples were collected via sterile catheterization, resulting in 445 vials for microbial analysis. DNA extraction was performed using three protocols: the standard protocol (SP), water dilution protocol (WDP), and chelation-assisted protocol (CAP). DNA quality (concentration, purity, and contamination levels) was assessed using NanoDrop spectrophotometry.Microbial analysis was conducted on 138 samples (108 cancerous and 30 benign) using 16S rRNA sequencing. Prior to sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform, Victor 3 fluorometry was used for validation. Results: WDP outperformed other methods, achieving significantly higher 260/280 and 260/230 ratios, indicating superior DNA purity and reduced contamination, while maintaining reliable DNA yields. CAP was excluded due to poor performance across all metrics. Microbial abundance was significantly higher in WDP-extracted samples (p<0.0001), whereas SP demonstrated higher alpha diversity indices (p<0.01), likely due to improved detection of low-abundance taxa. Beta diversity analysis showed no significant compositional differences between SP and WDP (p=1.0), supporting the reliability of WDP for microbiome research. Conclusions WDP is a highly effective and reliable method for microbial DNA extraction from urine, ensuring high-quality and reproducible results. Future research should address sample variability and crystal precipitation to further refine microbiome-based diagnostics and therapeutics.

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.

Background: A picosecond laser irradiation technique has presented satisfactory cosmetic outcomes for the treatment of various pigmented lesions. We aimed to evaluate the clinical results of a picosecond neodymiumdoped:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) (PSNY) laser for the treatment of various pigmented lesions and to compare them with the results of a conventional Q-switched Nd:YAG laser. Methods: A retrospective review of subjects treated with a PSNY laser was performed. Clinical improvement was assessed by two blinded dermatologists using a 5-point Global Assessment Scale (GAS). Adverse events were also assessed. Results: Forty-eight patients were treated with a dual-wavelength (532-nm and/or 1,064-nm) PSNY laser. Sixteen of the 48 patients (33.3%) experienced more than 50% improvement after the PSNY treatment. Patients with café-au-lait macule showed the greatest improvement, which was fair to good (GAS, 3.80 ± 0.76). Patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation received the highest number of treatment sessions (6.60 ± 3.44 times). The duration of follow-up was the longest in patients with Ota’s nevus (22.50 ± 5.44 weeks). There were no serious complications during the treatment period. Conclusion In our case series, it was concluded that a dual-wavelength 532-nm and 1,064-nm PSNY laser was safe and effective for the treatment of pigmented lesions in Korean patients.

Purpose: T1 high grade (T1HG) bladder cancer (BC) is a type of non-muscle invasive BC (NMIBC) that is recognized as an aggressive subtype with a heightened propensity for progression. Current risk stratification methods for NMIBC rely on clinicopathological indicators; however, these approaches do not adequately capture the aggressive nature of T1HG BC. Thus, new, more accurate biomarkers for T1HG risk stratification are needed. Here, we enrolled three different patient cohorts and investigated expression of collagen type VI alpha 1 (COL6A1), a key component of the extracellular matrix, at different stages and grades of BC, with a specific focus on T1HG BC. Materials and Methods: Samples from 298 BC patients were subjected to RNA sequencing and real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results: We found that T1HG BC and muscle invasive BC (MIBC) exhibited comparable expression of COL6A1, which was significantly higher than that by other NMIBC subtypes. In particular, T1HG patients who later progressed to MIBC had considerably higher expression of COL6A1 than Ta, T1 low grade patients, and patients that did not progress, highlighting the aggressive nature and higher risk of progression associated with T1HG BC. Moreover, Cox and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses revealed a significant association between elevated expression of COL6A1 and poor progression-free survival of T1HG BC patients (multivariate Cox hazard ratio, 16.812; 95% confidence interval, 3.283–86.095; p=0.001 and p=0.0002 [log-rank test]). Conclusions These findings suggest that COL6A1 may be a promising biomarker for risk stratification of T1HG BC, offering valuable insight into disease prognosis and guidance of personalized treatment decisions.

Background: In a previous study, rhinoplasty rasp was shown an effective method for removal of button osteoma (BO) of the skull. Objective: In the present study, our experience was presented and surgical outcome using high-speed burr in surgery for BO evaluated. Methods: The register-based surgery reports of patients who underwent local excision of BO (2010∼2023) at a single institution were reviewed. Demographics, photodocumentation, radiologic examinations, pathology reports, data of scar prevention, and surgical outcome in the BO study cohort were analyzed. Results: A total of 20 BO lesions in 18 patients (14 females and four males; mean age of 52.4±14.3 years) who underwent surgery using high-speed burr were assessed. The mean size of BO was 9.3 mm (range, 5∼17 mm).Most of the BOs were located on the forehead (19/20, 95.0%), which was associated with the course of the supratrochlear (n=13) or supraorbital nerve (n=6). Minimal hematoma was complicated in three patients (16.7%).Delayed complications, recurrence, and severe scarring during the mean follow-up of 3.1±3.5 months were not reported. Conclusion The use of high-speed burr for surface smoothening may provide good surgical results in minimally invasive BO surgery.

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: Oxaliplatin, a component of the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) regimen, has a more favorable toxicity profile than cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). However, oxaliplatin can induce sensory neuropathy and cumulative, dose-related toxicities. Thus, the capecitabine maintenance regimen may achieve the maximum treatment effect while reducing the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients with advanced GC between capecitabine maintenance and observation after 1st line XELOX chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients treated with six cycles of XELOX for advanced GC in six hospitals of the Catholic University of Korea were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine maintenance or observation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed using a two-sided log-rank test stratified at a 5% significance level. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 32 and 31 patients were randomized into the maintenance and observation groups, respectively. After randomization, the median number of capecitabine maintenance cycles was 6. The PFS was significantly higher in the maintenance group than the observation group (6.3 vs. 4.1 months, P=0.010). Overall survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (18.2 vs. 16.5 months, P=0.624). Toxicities, such as hand-foot syndrome, were reported in some maintenance group patients. Maintenance treatment was a significant factor associated with PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.250–0.890; P=0.020). Conclusions After 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy, capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged PFS compared with observation, and toxicity was manageable. Maintenance treatment was a significant prognostic factor associated with PFS.