Sang Soo Eom, Wonyoung Choi, B. Eom, Sin Hye Park, S. Kim, Young Il Kim, H. Yoon, J. Lee, C. Kim, H. Kim, M. Kook, I. Choi, Young-Woo Kim, Young-iee Park, K. Ryu
{"title":"全球胃癌治疗指南的综合比较综述","authors":"Sang Soo Eom, Wonyoung Choi, B. Eom, Sin Hye Park, S. Kim, Young Il Kim, H. Yoon, J. Lee, C. Kim, H. Kim, M. Kook, I. Choi, Young-Woo Kim, Young-iee Park, K. Ryu","doi":"10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country’s guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Sang Soo Eom, Wonyoung Choi, B. Eom, Sin Hye Park, S. Kim, Young Il Kim, H. Yoon, J. Lee, C. Kim, H. Kim, M. Kook, I. Choi, Young-Woo Kim, Young-iee Park, K. Ryu\",\"doi\":\"10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country’s guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2022.22.e10","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Comprehensive and Comparative Review of Global Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines
Countries differ in their treatment expertise and research results regarding gastric cancer; hence, treatment guidelines are diverse based on evidence and medical situations. A comprehensive and comparative review of each country’s guidelines is imperative to understand the similarities and differences among countries. We reviewed and compared five gastric cancer treatment guidelines in terms of endoscopic, surgical, perioperative, and palliative systemic treatment based on evidence levels and recommendation grades, as well as the postoperative follow-up strategies for each guideline. The Korean, Chinese, and European guidelines provided evidence and grading of the recommendations. The United States guidelines suggested categories for evidence and consensus. The Japanese guidelines suggested evidence and recommendations only for systemic treatment. The Korean and Japanese guidelines described endoscopic treatment, surgery, and lymphadenectomy in detail. The Chinese, United States, and European guidelines more intensively considered perioperative chemotherapy. In particular, the indications for chemotherapy and the regimens recommended by each guideline differed slightly. Considering their medical situations, each guideline had some diversity in terms of adopting evidence, which resulted in heterogeneous recommendations. This review will help medical personnel to comprehensively understand the diversity in gastric cancer treatment guidelines for each country in terms of evidence and recommendations.