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.

Objective:To explore the potential causal relationship between gut microbiota and teratozoospermia.Methods:We searched the database of Genome-Wide Association Study(GWAS)for gut microbiota-and teratozoospermia-related data.We used gut microbiota as an exposure factor,determined the instrumental variables according to the GWAS data on 18 340 participants released by the MiBioGen Alliance,and derived the outcome variables from the European data on teratozoospermia,with a sample size of 85 716,including 915 cases and 209 006 controls.Using inverse-variance weighting(IVW),MR-Egger regression and the weighted median estimator(WME),we performed two-sample Mendelian randomization(MR)analysis on the retrieved data,and estimated the causal relationship between gut microbiota and teratozoospermia based on the β value.Results:Two-sample MR analysis indicated that the class Erysipelotrichia,family Erysipelotrichaceae,family Streptococcaceae,genus Coprococcusl,genus Ruminococcaceae UCG009,genus Streptococcus,order Clostridialesm and order Erysipelotrichales were causally related with the increased risk,while the family Porphyromonadaceae with the decreased risk of teratozoospermia.Conclusion:The class Erysipelotrichia,family Erysipe-lotrichaceae,family Streptococcaceae,genus Coprococcusl,genus Ruminococcaceae UCG009,genus Streptococcus,order Clostridia-lesm and order Erysipelotrichales are one of the causes of teratozoospermia,related to the increased risk of the condition,while the family Porphyromonadaceae has a protective effect on sperm morphology,reducing the risk of teratozoospermia.

Purpose: Despite the increasing use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), its oncologic safety in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) needs to be comprehensively clarified in breast cancer management. The objective of the present study was to analyze the oncologic safety of IBR following NACT. Methods: In total, 587 patients with breast cancer who underwent a total mastectomy (TM) with IBR after NACT between 2008 and 2017 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The reviewed patients with IBR following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) were matched 1:3 to patients who underwent TM alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stages before NACT, response to NACT, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. Results: After propensity score matching, 95 patients who underwent IBR following SSM/ NSM after NACT (IBR group) and 228 patients who underwent TM alone after NACT (TM group) were selected. The median follow-up period was 73 (range, 5–181) months after matching. After matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (88.8% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.516), disease-free survival (67.3% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.099), distant metastasis-free survival (71.9% vs. 81.9%, p = 0.057), or overall survival (84.1% vs. 91.5, p = 0.061) rates. In multivariate analyses, conducting IBR was not associated with increased risks for locoregional recurrence, any recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall death. Conclusion Our findings suggest that IBR following SSM/NSM elicits comparable long-term oncologic outcomes to those of TM alone in the setting of NACT.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Background: Dermatophyte infection is one of the most common skin diseases affecting the skin, hair, and nails. Despite widespread recognition of the disease, missing details and misperceptions are commonplace in the general population. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the public perception and behavior regarding dermatophytosis of the hands and feet. Methods: This results from an online survey conducted between July 2022 and August 2022. The survey included 1,000 Korean participants aged 20 to 69 years, of whom 60% experienced symptoms of tinea pedis or onychomycosis. The questionnaire focused on the awareness and personal experience of tinea pedis and perception of the treatment of dermatophytosis. Results: Of the 1,000 participants, nearly 80% regarded tinea pedis as a common skin condition by which anyone can be affected. Furthermore, 88.4% had heard that the treatment of tinea pedis could be harmful, causing skin rash (60.4%) and worsening liver function (48.5%). Among 896 participants who noticed suspicious symptoms, 81.2% did not visit the clinic because it was not severe (50.1%) and seemed easily manageable (25.7%). Of the respondents, 84.4% preferred to meet dermatologists rather than non-dermatologist doctors regarding skin diseases, mainly because of trust in experts and belief in a faster cure. Conclusion Providing accurate and detailed information via online media, educational campaigns, and medical papers can rectify misconceptions and improve patient appliance, contributing to public skin health.

Background: and Purpose The congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (CHA2DS2-VASc) and hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) scores have been validated in estimating the risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding, respectively, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study investigated stroke-specific predictors of major bleeding in patients with stroke and AF who were taking oral anticoagulants (OACs). Methods: Subjects were selected from patients enrolled in the Korean ATrial fibrillaTion EvaluatioN regisTry in Ischemic strOke patieNts (K-ATTENTION) nationwide multicenter registry between 2013 and 2015. Patients were excluded if they were not taking OACs, had no brain imaging data, or had intracranial bleeding directly related to the index stroke. Major bleeding was defined according to International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between clinical variables and major bleeding and Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to analyze event-free survival. Results: Of a total of 3,213 patients, 1,414 subjects (mean age of 72.6 years, 52.5% males) were enrolled in this study. Major bleeding was reported in 34 patients during the median follow-up period of 1.73 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, p=0.006), hypertension (HR 3.18, p=0.030), persistent AF type (HR 2.51, p=0.016), and initial hemoglobin level (HR 0.74, p=0.001) were independently associated with major bleeding risk. Except for hypertension, these associations remained significant after adjusting for the HAS-BLED score. Intracranial atherosclerosis presented a trend of association without statistical significance (HR 2.21, p=0.050). Conclusions This study found that major bleeding risk was independently associated with stroke-specific factors in anticoagulated patients with stroke and AF. This has the clinical implication that baseline characteristics of patients with stroke and AF should be considered in secondary prevention, which would bring the net clinical benefit of balancing recurrent stroke prevention with minimal bleeding complications.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) patients usually wonder if their condition will worsen after vaccination or if they should continue with the treatment they are receiving. Considering that many patients treated with dupilumab had previously experienced severe AD symptoms and flares, the concerns are more understandable. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the safety of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with AD treated with dupilumab. Methods: We enrolled 133 patients (101 dupilumab-treated and 32 systemic oral agentstreated as control group) with AD from six hospitals. Patients were asked about worsening pruritus and AD (5-point Likert scale) after vaccination. AD variables (eczema area and severity index [EASI], investigator’s global assessment [IGA], itch numerical rating scale [NRS], sleep NRS, and patient-oriented eczema measure [POEM]) were compared pre- and postvaccination. Adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Results: The incidence of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and worsening AD symptoms in dupilumab-treated patients were not significantly different compared with that in the control group. The itch NRS score increased significantly after vaccination (p<0.001).However, there were no statistically significant differences between the pre-and post-EASI, IGA, and POEM scores. Eight patients (7.9%) had worse EASI scores and required rescue therapy; however, most were easily managed with low-dose steroids or topical agents. None of the patients discontinued dupilumab treatment. Conclusion No serious adverse reactions were observed in patients with AD after COVID-19 vaccination. Exacerbation of pruritus and AD symptoms was observed but was mostly mild and transient.