RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
This corrects the article on p. 3 in vol. 23, PMID: 36750993.
RESUMEN
A 70-year-old man with past history of hemicolectomy due to colon cancer underwent a follow-up abdominal/pelvic CT scan. CT revealed a right adrenal metastasis and then he underwent FDG-PET/CT study to search for other possible tumor recurrence. In PET images, other than right adrenal gland, there was an unexpected intense FDG uptake at right inguinal region and at first, it was considered to be an inguinal metastasis. However, correlation of PET images to concurrent CT data revealed it to be a bladder herniation. This case provides an example that analysis of PET images without corresponding CT images can lead to an insufficient interpretation or false positive diagnosis. Hence, radiologists should be aware of the importance of a combined analysis of PET and CT data in the interpretation of integrated PET/CT and rare but intriguing conditions, such as bladder herniation, during the evaluation of PET scans in colon cancer patients.