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.

Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) exert a novel function of trapping pathogens. Released NETs can accumulate in inflamed tissues, be recognized by other immune cells for clearance, and lead to tissue toxicity. Therefore, the deleterious effect of NET is an etiological factor, causing several diseases directly or indirectly. NLR family pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3) in neutrophils is pivotal in signaling the innate immune response and is associated with several NET-related diseases. Despite these observations, the role of NLRP3 in NET formation in neuroinflammation remains elusive. Therefore, we aimed to explore NET formation promoted by NLRP3 in an LPS-induced inflamed brain. Wild-type and NLRP3 knockout mice were used to investigate the role of NLRP3 in NET formation. Brain inflammation was systemically induced by administering LPS. In such an environment, the NET formation was evaluated based on the expression of its characteristic indicators. DNA leakage and NET formation were analyzed in both mice through Western blot, flow cytometry, and in vitro live cell imaging as well as two-photon imaging. Our data revealed that NLRP3 promotes DNA leakage and facilitates NET formation accompanied by neutrophil death. Moreover, NLRP3 is not involved in neutrophil infiltration but is predisposed to boost NET formation, which is accompanied by neutrophil death in the LPS-induced inflamed brain. Furthermore, either NLRP3 deficiency or neutrophil depletion diminished pro-inflammatory cytokine, IL-1β, and alleviated blood-brain barrier damage. Overall, the results suggest that NLRP3 exacerbates NETosis in vitro and in the inflamed brain, aggravating neuroinflammation.These findings provide a clue that NLRP3 would be a potential therapeutic target to alleviate neuroinflammation.

Purpose: This study aimed to validate the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral to Care (SPARC) as an effective tool for screening palliative care needs among Korean cancer patients. Materials and Methods: The English version of the SPARC was translated by four Korean oncologists and reconciled by a Korean language specialist and a medical oncologist fluent in English. After the first version of the Korean SPARC (K-SPARC) was developed, back-translation into English was performed by a professional translator and bilingual oncologist. The back-translated version was reviewed by the original author (S.H.A.), and modifications were made (ver. 2). The second version of the K-SPARC was tested against other questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Results: Thirty patients were enrolled in the pilot trial. Fifteen were male, and the median age was 64.5 years. Six patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more. All patients except one were receiving chemotherapy. Regarding internal consistency, the Cronbach’s α scores for physical symptoms, psychological issues, religious and spiritual issues, independency and activity, family and social issues, and treatment issues were 0.812, 0.804, 0.589, 0.843, 0.754, and 0.822, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the SPARC and FACT-G were 0.479 (p=0.007) for the physical domain and –0.130 (p=0.493) for the social domain. Conclusion This pilot study indicates that the K-SPARC could be a reliable tool to screen for palliative care needs among Korean cancer patients. A further study to validate our findings is ongoing.

Objective: Arterial blood gas analysis (ABGA) is routinely performed in hyperventilation syndrome (HVS) patients in the emergency department (ED). We tried to substitute end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) for arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in HVS patients in ED. Methods: It was a prospective observational cohort study of HVS patients from May 2019 to March 2020. Data of age, sex, vital sign, ETCO2 and ABGA were collected. We compared the Pearson correlation between ETCO2 and PaCO2. Results: A total of 135 HVS patients were included in the study. The average value for ETCO2 was 24.9±7.2. It showed a significant linear between ETCO2 and PaCO2. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.893 (P<0.001). The linear correlation coefficients of ETCO2 <20 mmHg and ETCO2 20-35 mmHg groups were 0.513 and 0.827, respectively (P<0.001). Conclusion We suggest that ABGA can be replaced by ETCO2 in HVS patients in ED.

BACKGROUND: AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance and safety of a new ¹⁸F-labeled amyloid tracer, ¹⁸F-FC119S. METHODS: This study prospectively recruited 105 participants, comprising 53 with Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, 16 patients with dementia other than AD (non-AD), and 36 healthy controls (HCs). In the first screening visit, the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery cognitive function test was given to the dementia group, while HC subjects completed the Korean version of the Mini Mental State Examination. Individuals underwent ¹⁸F-FC119S PET, ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET, and brain MRI. The diagnostic performance of ¹⁸F-FC119S PET for AD was compared to a historical control (comprising previously reported and currently used amyloid-beta PET agents), ¹⁸F-FDG PET, and MRI. The standardized uptake value (SUV) ratio (ratio of the cerebral cortical SUV to the cerebellar SUV) was measured for each PET data set to provide semiquantitative analysis. All adverse effects during the clinical trial periods were monitored. RESULTS: Visual assessments of the ¹⁸F-FC119S PET data revealed a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 84% in detecting AD. ¹⁸F-FC119S PET demonstrated equivalent or better diagnostic performance for AD detection than the historical control, ¹⁸F-FDG PET (sensitivity of 80.0% and specificity of 76.0%), and MRI (sensitivity of 98.0% and specificity of 50.0%). The SUV ratios differed significantly between AD patients and the other groups, at 1.44±0.17 (mean±SD) for AD, 1.24±0.09 for non-AD, and 1.21±0.08 for HC. No clinically significant adverse effects occurred during the trial periods. CONCLUSIONS ¹⁸F-FC119S PET provides high sensitivity and specificity in detecting AD and therefore may be considered a useful diagnostic tool for AD.

The occurrence of incidentally detected pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is continuously increasing. Radiologic examinations including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography have been widely used as the main diagnostic and surveillance methods for patients with incidental PCLs. Although most incidentally detected PCLs are considered benign, they have the potential to become malignant. Currently, we have several guidelines for the management of incidental PCLs. However, there is still debate over proper management, in terms of accurate diagnosis, optimal follow-up interval, and imaging tools. Because imaging studies play a crucial role in the management of incidental PCLs, the 2017 consensus recommendations of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology for the diagnosis and surveillance of incidental PCLs approved 11 out of 16 recommendations. Although several challenges remain in terms of optimization and standardization, these consensus recommendations might serve as useful tools to provide a more standardized approach and to optimize care of patients with incidental PCLs.
Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance ; Consensus ; Diagnosis ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Pancreas ; Pancreatic Cyst

Neurocysticercosis (NCC) by Taenia solium is the most common parasitic infection of the central nervous system involving the cerebrum. However, spinal involvement of NCC is rare. Spinal NCC can cause radiculopathy, myelopathy, cauda equina syndrome, and even paraparesis, depending on its location and size. Spinal NCC may require surgical treatment as a first-line treatment because medical therapy can further aggravate the inflammation due to dead cysts, resulting in clinical deterioration. The current standard therapy for spinal NCC is surgical decompression followed by medical therapy. We experienced a case of widespread thoracolumbar intradural extramedullary cysticercosis involving the spinal canal with cerebral cysticercosis. We report this rare case with literature review.
Central Nervous System ; Cerebrum ; Cysticercosis* ; Decompression, Surgical ; Humans ; Inflammation ; Neurocysticercosis ; Paraparesis ; Polyradiculopathy ; Radiculopathy ; Spinal Canal* ; Spinal Cord Diseases ; Spine ; Taenia solium

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Long-term data on antiviral therapy in Korean patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are limited. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) and lamivudine (LAM) over 240 weeks. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with HBeAg-negative CHB were randomized to receive ETV 0.5 mg/day or LAM 100 mg/day during the 96 week double-blind phase, followed by open-label treatment through week 240. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with virologic response (VR; hepatitis B virus [HBV] DNA<300 copies/mL) at week 24. Secondary objectives included alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization and emergence of ETV resistance (week 96), VR and log reduction in HBV DNA levels (week 240), and safety evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients (>16 years old) were included (ETV, n=56; LAM, n=64). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of ETV-treated patients achieved VR compared to LAM at week 24 (92.9% vs. 67.2%, P=0.0006), week 96 (94.6% vs. 48.4%, P < 0.0001), and week 240 (95.0% vs. 47.6%, P < 0.0001). At week 96, ALT normalization was observed in 87.5% and 51.6% of ETV and LAM patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). Virologic breakthrough occurred in one patient (1.8%) receiving ETV and 26 patients (42.6%) receiving LAM (P < 0.0001) up to week 96. Emergence of resistance to ETV was not detected. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and unrelated to the study medications. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term ETV treatment was superior to LAM, with a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving VR. Both treatments were well tolerated.
Alanine Transaminase ; DNA ; Hepatitis B virus ; Hepatitis B* ; Hepatitis B, Chronic* ; Hepatitis* ; Hepatitis, Chronic* ; Humans ; Incidence ; Lamivudine*