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.

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a follicular variant of lichen planus, typically occurring on the scalp. A 61-year-old man presented with asymptomatic pigmented atrophic patches on his chin. Dermoscopy showed reticular hyperpigmentation and perifollicular hyperkeratosis. A punch biopsy revealed follicular plugging, perifollicular lymphocytic infiltration, vacuolar degeneration of the follicular basal cell layer, mild interface dermatitis, and melanophages. Direct immunofluorescence testing was negative, leading to a diagnosis of facial LPP. Some have classified similar cases as facial LPP, while others have reported them as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus. This report explores the question of whether these cases should be classified as facial LPP, or as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus, or as conditions encompassed within the spectrum of these two disorders, with a comprehensive literature review.

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a follicular variant of lichen planus, typically occurring on the scalp. A 61-year-old man presented with asymptomatic pigmented atrophic patches on his chin. Dermoscopy showed reticular hyperpigmentation and perifollicular hyperkeratosis. A punch biopsy revealed follicular plugging, perifollicular lymphocytic infiltration, vacuolar degeneration of the follicular basal cell layer, mild interface dermatitis, and melanophages. Direct immunofluorescence testing was negative, leading to a diagnosis of facial LPP. Some have classified similar cases as facial LPP, while others have reported them as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus. This report explores the question of whether these cases should be classified as facial LPP, or as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus, or as conditions encompassed within the spectrum of these two disorders, with a comprehensive literature review.

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a follicular variant of lichen planus, typically occurring on the scalp. A 61-year-old man presented with asymptomatic pigmented atrophic patches on his chin. Dermoscopy showed reticular hyperpigmentation and perifollicular hyperkeratosis. A punch biopsy revealed follicular plugging, perifollicular lymphocytic infiltration, vacuolar degeneration of the follicular basal cell layer, mild interface dermatitis, and melanophages. Direct immunofluorescence testing was negative, leading to a diagnosis of facial LPP. Some have classified similar cases as facial LPP, while others have reported them as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus. This report explores the question of whether these cases should be classified as facial LPP, or as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus, or as conditions encompassed within the spectrum of these two disorders, with a comprehensive literature review.

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a follicular variant of lichen planus, typically occurring on the scalp. A 61-year-old man presented with asymptomatic pigmented atrophic patches on his chin. Dermoscopy showed reticular hyperpigmentation and perifollicular hyperkeratosis. A punch biopsy revealed follicular plugging, perifollicular lymphocytic infiltration, vacuolar degeneration of the follicular basal cell layer, mild interface dermatitis, and melanophages. Direct immunofluorescence testing was negative, leading to a diagnosis of facial LPP. Some have classified similar cases as facial LPP, while others have reported them as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus. This report explores the question of whether these cases should be classified as facial LPP, or as a follicular variant of lichen planus pigmentosus, or as conditions encompassed within the spectrum of these two disorders, with a comprehensive literature review.

The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is a noninvasive test that measures neural activity in response to auditory stimuli. Racial differences in head shape have provided strong evidence for specific normative data and accurate device calibration. International standards emphasize the need for standardized procedures and references. This study aimed to outline the standard procedure and related normative ABR values. Standard procedures were performed according to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards. Five studies from two countries were included to compare the normative values of the ABR. The dataset from the National Standard Reference Data Center (NSRDC) was used as reference. Normative values were described in terms of stimuli, latency, and amplitude. For click stimuli, the latency of the ABR showed different patterns across populations, such as those from Korea and the USA. Although the latencies reported by the NSRDC and for Koreans were relatively short, those reported for USA populations were longer. Using clicks, it was shown that the USA population had the largest ABR amplitude compared to those reported for the other two datasets. For Wave V latency using tone bursts, a similar pattern was identified with click stimuli. Frequency-specific trends were also observed. Although there is a lack of ABR datasets, the information and insights of the present study could be utilized as standard guidelines in research on ABR.

Background: Vitiligo, which is characterized by depigmented patches on the skin, poses challenges in achieving lasting repigmentation after treatment. Identifying factors contributing to vitiligo recurrence is vital for effective management; however, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding post-treatment recurrence factors in patients with vitiligo. Objective: We aimed to investigate the factors associated with recurrence in patients with non-segmental vitiligo. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patient’s medical records from 2000 to 2023, and defined a “cure group” with cosmetically satisfactorily repigmentation maintained for at least 6 months. This group was further divided into recurrence and non-recurrence groups. We analyzed the clinical characteristics and various factors related to treatment. Furthermore, we explored the cure and recurrence rates based on the location of vitiligo, and performed a survival analysis for recurrence with or without maintenance therapy. Results: Of 70 cured patients, 19 relapsed. Maintenance treatment was the most significant factor affecting vitiligo recurrence (p＜0.0001, odds ratio=0.029). There were no statistically significant differences in initial age, sex, disease duration, sites, subtype, treatment duration, treatment modality, and comorbidities. After 100 months, 87.3% of the patients in the maintenance therapy group remained recurrence-free, while only 20% of the non-maintenance therapy group did not experience recurrence. Head and neck lesions had the highest cure rates, whereas lower limb lesions showed higher recurrence rates. Approximately 63.2% of recurrences occurred at the original site, while 31.6% occurred outside the original site. Conclusion The absence of maintenance therapy was the most important factor associated with the recurrence of nonsegmental vitiligo.