Background To promote precision oncology in clinical practice, the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Japanese Cancer Association, jointly published “Clinical practice guidance for next-generation sequencing in cancer diagnosis and treatment” in 2017. Since new information on cancer genomic medicine has emerged since the 1st edition of the guidance was released, including reimbursement for NGS-based multiplex gene panel tests in 2019, the guidance revision was made. Methods A working group was organized with 33 researchers from cancer genomic medicine designated core hospitals and other academic institutions. For an impartial evaluation of the draft version, eight committee members from each society conducted an external evaluation. Public comments were also made on the draft. The finalized Japanese version was published on the websites of the three societies in March 2020. Results The revised edition consists of two parts: an explanation of the cancer genomic profiling test (General Discussion) and clinical questions (CQs) that are of concern in clinical practice. Particularly, patient selection should be based on the expectation that the patient's post-test general condition and organ function will be able to tolerate drug therapy, and the optimal timing of test should be considered in consideration of subsequent treatment plans, not limited to treatment lines. Conclusion We expect that the revised version will be used by healthcare professionals and will also need to be continually reviewed in line with future developments in cancer genome medicine.

Background/Aims: Delayed bleeding is among the adverse events associated with therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for delayed bleeding after gastrointestinal endoscopic resection in patients receiving oral anticoagulants as well as to compare the rates of occurrence of delayed bleeding between the oral anticoagulants used. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 772 patients receiving anticoagulants. Of these, 389 and 383 patients were receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin, respectively. Therapeutic endoscopic procedures performed included endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection, polypectomy, and cold polypectomy. Results: Delayed bleeding occurred in 90 patients (11.7%) with no significant difference between the DOAC and warfarin groups (9.5 and 13.8%, respectively). Delayed bleeding occurred significantly more frequently with apixaban than with rivaroxaban (13.5 vs. 6.4%; p < 0.05). A multivariate analysis identified continued anticoagulant therapy (OR 2.29), anticoagulant withdrawal with heparin bridging therapy (HBT; OR 2.18), anticoagulant therapy combined with 1 antiplatelet drug (OR 1.72), and ESD (OR 3.87) as risk factors for delayed bleeding. Conclusion: This study identified continued anticoagulant therapy, anticoagulant withdrawal with HBT, anticoagulant therapy combined with 1 antiplatelet drug, and ESD as risk factors for delayed bleeding after therapeutic endoscopy in patients receiving oral anticoagulants. Delayed bleeding rates were not significantly different between those receiving DOACs and warfarin. It was also suggested that the occurrence of delayed bleeding may vary between different DOACs and that oral anticoagulant withdrawal should be minimized during therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy, given the thromboembolic risk involved.

No abstract

budding grade is associated with invasive clinicopathological features, adverse postoperative prognosis and EMT status in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Background Since June 2019, cancer genomic profiling (CGP) tests have been reimbursed by the National Health Insurance system in Japan, with restrictions for government-designated hospitals with a molecular tumor board composed of multidisciplinary specialists, known as an expert panel (EP). The standardization of EPs is a critical challenge for implementing precision oncology in the clinical setting. Methods Data on consecutive cases who underwent the CGP tests at 11 core hospitals between June 2019 and January 2020 were collected. We evaluated the proportions of cases that received genomically matched treatments, including investigational new drugs (INDs) based on CGP results, and/or for which genetic counseling was recommended. Two simulated cases were annotated by each EP. The annotated reports were then centrally assessed. Results Each EP mainly discussed the applicability to genomically matched treatments and the necessity of performing genetic counseling. A pre-review of the report by key members in each EP reportedly made the EP conference more interactive and efficient, and thereby saved time. A total of 747 cases underwent CGP tests, 28 cases (3.7%) received genomically matched treatment, and 17 cases (2.3%) were referred for genetic counseling. Annotated reports for the simulated cases varied across the EPs, particularly the number of recommended IND trials, which seemed to be associated with the actual number of participants in IND trials. Conclusions This investigation provides reference data for the application of precision oncology in a clinical setting. Further investigations on the standardization of clinical annotations are warranted.