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.

Background: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) account for a large proportion of healthcare-associated infections and have a significant impact on morbidity, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Adherence to the recommended infection prevention practices can effectively reduce the incidence of CAUTIs. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of CAUTIs and the efficacy of prevention programs across hospitals of various sizes. Methods: Intervention programs, including training, surveillance, and monitoring, were implemented. Data on the microorganisms responsible for CAUTIs, urinary catheter utilization ratio, rate of CAUTIs per 1,000 device days, and factors associated with the use of indwelling catheters were collected from 2017 to 2019. The incidence of CAUTIs and associated data were compared between university hospitals and small- and medium-sized hospitals. Results: Thirty-two hospitals participated in the study, including 21 university hospitals and 11 small- and medium-sized hospitals. The microorganisms responsible for CAUTIs and their resistance rates did not differ between the two groups. In the first quarter of 2018, the incidence rate was 2.05 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 1.44 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. After implementing interventions, the rate gradually decreased in the first quarter of 2019, with 1.18 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 0.79 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. However, by the end of the study, the infection rate increased to 1.74 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 1.80 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. Conclusion We implemented interventions to prevent CAUTIs and evaluated their outcomes. The incidence of these infections decreased in the initial phases of the intervention when adequate support and personnel were present. The rate of these infections may be reduced by implementing active interventions such as consistent monitoring and adherence to guidelines for preventing infections.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations for healthcare workers (HCWs) have begun in South Korea. To investigate adverse events (AEs) of the first dose of each vaccine, any symptom was collected daily for seven days after vaccination in a tertiary hospital. We found that 1,301 of 1,403 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients and 38 of 80 BNT162b2 recipients reported AEs respectively (90.9% vs. 52.5%): injection-site pain (77.7% vs. 51.2%), myalgia (60.5% vs.11.2%), fatigue (50.7% vs. 7.5%), headache (47.4% vs. 7.5%), and fever (36.1% vs. 5%; P < 0.001 for all). Young HCWs reported more AEs with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than with BNT162b2.No incidences of anaphylaxis were observed. Only one serious AE required hospitalization for serious vomiting, and completely recovered. In conclusion, reported AEs were more common in recipients with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those with BNT162b2. However, most of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in severity. Sufficient explanation and preparation for expected AEs required to promote widespread vaccination.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations for healthcare workers (HCWs) have begun in South Korea. To investigate adverse events (AEs) of the first dose of each vaccine, any symptom was collected daily for seven days after vaccination in a tertiary hospital. We found that 1,301 of 1,403 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients and 38 of 80 BNT162b2 recipients reported AEs respectively (90.9% vs. 52.5%): injection-site pain (77.7% vs. 51.2%), myalgia (60.5% vs.11.2%), fatigue (50.7% vs. 7.5%), headache (47.4% vs. 7.5%), and fever (36.1% vs. 5%; P < 0.001 for all). Young HCWs reported more AEs with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than with BNT162b2.No incidences of anaphylaxis were observed. Only one serious AE required hospitalization for serious vomiting, and completely recovered. In conclusion, reported AEs were more common in recipients with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those with BNT162b2. However, most of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in severity. Sufficient explanation and preparation for expected AEs required to promote widespread vaccination.