Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

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 evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

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 evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

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: Tumescent in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been reported to increase the risk of necrosis by impairing blood flow to the skin flap and nipple-areolar complex. At our institution, we introduced a tumescent-free robotic NSM using the da Vinci single-port system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM between October 2020 and March 2023 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea). Clinicopathological characteristics, adverse events, and operative time were evaluated. Results: During the study period, 118 patients underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM. Thirty-one patients (26.3%) experienced an adverse event. Five patients (4.2%) were classified as grade III based on the Clavien-Dindo classification and required surgery. The mean total operative time was 467 minutes for autologous tissue reconstruction (n = 49) and 252 minutes for implants (n = 69). No correlation was found between the cumulative number of surgical cases and the breast operative time (P = 0.30, 0.52, 0.59 for surgeons A, B, C) for the 3 surgeons. However, a significant linear relationship (P < 0.001) was observed, with the operative time increasing by 13 minutes for every 100-g increase in specimen weight. Conclusion Tumescent-free robotic NSM is a safe procedure with a feasible operative time and few adverse events.

Background/Aims: Shifts in the gut microbiota and metabolites are interrelated with liver cirrhosis progression and complications. However, causal relationships have not been evaluated comprehensively. Here, we identified complication-dependent gut microbiota and metabolic signatures in patients with liver cirrhosis. Methods: Microbiome taxonomic profiling was performed on 194 stool samples (52 controls and 142 cirrhosis patients) via V3-V4 16S rRNA sequencing. Next, 51 samples (17 controls and 34 cirrhosis patients) were selected for fecal metabolite profiling via gas chromatography mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography coupled to timeof-flight mass spectrometry. Correlation analyses were performed targeting the gut-microbiota, metabolites, clinical parameters, and presence of complications (varices, ascites, peritonitis, encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatocellular carcinoma, and deceased). Results: Veillonella bacteria, Ruminococcus gnavus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae are cirrhosis-related microbiotas compared with control group. Bacteroides ovatus, Clostridium symbiosum, Emergencia timonensis, Fusobacterium varium, and Hungatella_uc were associated with complications in the cirrhosis group. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) for the diagnosis of cirrhosis, encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, and deceased were 0.863, 0.733, 0.71, and 0.69, respectively. The AUROCs of mixed microbial species for the diagnosis of cirrhosis and complication were 0.808 and 0.847, respectively. According to the metabolic profile, 5 increased fecal metabolites in patients with cirrhosis were biomarkers (AUROC >0.880) for the diagnosis of cirrhosis and complications. Clinical markers were significantly correlated with the gut microbiota and metabolites. Conclusions Cirrhosis-dependent gut microbiota and metabolites present unique signatures that can be used as noninvasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of cirrhosis and its complications.

New Korean guidelines for the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease were developed based on literature reviews by the Korean Dry Eye Guideline Establishment Committee, a previous dry eye guideline by Korean Corneal Disease Study Group, a survey of Korean Dry Eye Society (KDES) members, and KDES consensus meetings. The new definition of dry eye was also proposed by KDES regular members. The new definition by the regular members of the KDES is as follows: “Dry eye is a disease of the ocular surface characterized by tear film abnormalities and ocular symptoms.” The combination of ocular symptoms and an unstable tear film (tear breakup time <7 seconds) was considered as essential components for the diagnosis of dry eye. Schirmer test and ocular surface staining were considered adjunctive diagnostic criteria. The treatment guidelines consisted of a simplified stepwise approach according to aqueous deficiency dominant, evaporation dominant, and altered tear distribution subtypes. New Korean guidelines can be used as a simple, valid, and accessible tool for the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease in clinical practice.