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: To assess the safety and feasibility of intentionally positioning the catheter tip in the right atrium (RA) without an abutment during implantation of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP). Materials and Methods: We enrolled 330 patients who had undergone TIVAP implantation between January and December 2016 and postoperative chest CT. The TIVAP was placed using the single-incision technique to access the axillary vein directly from the incision line. To position the catheter tip in the RA without abutment, blood return was checked before cutting. Catheter length and complications were evaluated by retrospectively reviewing medical images and records. Results: All patients achieved successful catheter tip positioning without abutment or dysfunction. The median tip position was 15.3 mm distal to the cavoatrial junction (CAJ) on fluoroscopy and 6 mm distal to the CAJ on CT. Catheter tips migrated a median of 10.4 mm cephalically on CT compared to fluoroscopy. Thromboses were detected in the RA and superior vena cava in one patient each. Conclusion Intentional catheter tip positioning in the RA without abutment is a safe and feasible technique with a low incidence of thrombosis and no observed dysfunction.

Purpose: The elderly population in South Korea is steadily increasing, ushering in the super-aging era and emphasizing the need for oral health management. This study aimed to investigate changes in salivary flow rate, salivary buffer capacity, halitosis, oral health, and systemic diseases with age. Methods: This study was conducted retrospectively from August 2020 to May 2023, including 274 patients (66 males, 208 females; mean age 59.39±16.10 years) presenting with xerostomia or halitosis. Results: For salivary parameters, no significant differences were observed in unstimulated salivary flow rate, stimulated salivary flow rate, salivary pH, or buffer capacity across age groups (all p>0.05), contrary to expectations. Regarding halitosis, methyl mercaptan levels were significantly associated with age (p=0.049), though patients in their 20s exhibited the highest levels. Volatile sulfur compound levels showed a strong correlation with subjective halitosis (r=0.621, p<0.001). In terms of oral health, increased age was significantly associated with tongue coating (r=0.205, p=0.001). Among systemic diseases, hypertension (p=0.001) and diabetes (p=0.010) showed significant differences across age groups. The drug that showed a statistically significant correlation with increasing age was amlodipine (r=0.249, p=0.001), a widely used antihypertensive agent. Amlodipine usage was significantly associated with oral hygiene issues, sticky saliva, calculus deposition, and tongue coating (all p<0.05). The results highlight the changes in salivary parameters and other oral and systemic factors with age, along with their interrelationships. Conclusions These findings provide valuable insights to aid clinicians in developing optimal treatment plans for xerostomia and halitosis and in effectively managing oral health in the elderly population.