Purpose: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes represent the host immune response to cancer. CD4+ CD25 + FOXP3 + regulatory T cells (Tregs) suppress the immune reaction. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinicopathologic significance and roles of Tregs and CD8 + Tcells during hepatocarcinogenesis. Experimental Design: We examined the infiltration of FOXP3 + Tregs and CD8 + T cells in the tumor stroma and nontumorous liver parenchyma using 323 hepatic nodules including precursor lesions, early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and advanced HCC, along with 39 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas and 59 metastatic liver adenocarcinomas. We did immunohistochemical comparative studies. Results: The prevalence of Tregs was significantly higher in HCC than in the nontumorous liver (P < 0.001). The patient group with a high prevalence of Tregs infiltrating HCC showed a significantly lower survival rate (P = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed that the prevalence of Tregs infiltrating HCC was an independent prognostic factor. The prevalence of Tregs increased in a stepwise manner (P < 0.001) and that of CD8 + T cells decreased during the progression of hepatocarcinogenesis (P < 0.001). Regardless of the presence of hepatitis virus infection or histopathologic evidence of hepatitis, the prevalence of Tregs was significantly increased in nontumorous liver bearing primary hepatic tumors. Conclusions:Tregs play a role in controlling the immune response to HCC during the progression of hepatocarcinogenesis. It has been suggested that primary hepatic cancers develop in liver that is immunosuppressed by a marked infiltration of Tregs. A high prevalence of Tregs infiltrating HCC is thought to be an unfavorable prognostic indicator.

Cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, have both high morbidity and mortality among the gynecologic malignant tumors in Japan. The present study was conducted using both the population-based cancer registry and the gynecologic cancer registry to elucidate the characteristics of gynecologic malignant tumors in Japan. Based on nationwide estimates from the population-based cancer registry in Japan, the morbidities and mortality of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers were obtained and used for analysis. Clinicopathologic factors for cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, including age, clinical stage, postsurgical stage, histological type, therapeutic strategy, and prognosis were retrieved from the gynecologic cancer registry published by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and used for analysis. The morbidities of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers were 10,908, 13,606, and 9,384 women in 2012, respectively. The prevalence of endometrial cancer has significantly and consistently been increasing and represents the most common gynecologic malignant tumor in Japan. The mortalities of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers were 2.1, 1.3, and 3.2 per 100,000 in 2012, respectively. In 2014, 52.2% of cervical cancer patients were classified as stage I, 22.5% as stage II, 10.2% as stage III, and 11.2% as stage IV. In addition, 71.9% of endometrial cancer patients were classified as stage I, 6.0% as stage II, 13.3% as stage III, and 7.5% as stage IV. Finally, 43.2% of ovarian cancer patients were classified as stage I, 9.1% as stage II, 27.6% as stage III, and 7.2% as stage IV. Twelve-point six percent of ovarian cancer patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The use of primary patient-derived organoids for drug sensitivity and resistance testing could play an important role in precision cancer medicine. We developed expandable ovarian cancer organoids in < 3 weeks; these organoids captured the characteristics of histological cancer subtypes and replicated the mutational landscape of the primary tumours. Seven pairs of organoids (3 high-grade serous, 1 clear cell, 3 endometrioid) and original tumours shared 59.5% (36.1-73.1%) of the variants identified. Copy number variations were also similar among organoids and primary tumours. The organoid that harboured the BRCA1 pathogenic variant (p.L63*) showed a higher sensitivity to PARP inhibitor, olaparib, as well as to platinum drugs compared to the other organoids, whereas an organoid derived from clear cell ovarian cancer was resistant to conventional drugs for ovarian cancer, namely platinum drugs, paclitaxel, and olaparib. The overall success rate of primary organoid culture, including those of various histological subtypes, was 80% (28/35). Our data show that patient-derived organoids are suitable physiological ex vivo cancer models that can be used to screen effective personalised ovarian cancer drugs. Patient-derived tumour organoids have become important preclinical model systems in both cancer research and clinical settings 1. In contrast to patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models that need a large amount of surgical specimen and 4-8 months for development 2 , organoids can be cultured from patient materials and can be expanded with high efficiency in a relatively short period (typically < 1 month). Organoids from mouse intestine, as well as from various other mouse and human tissues, including the colon, stomach, liver, lung, prostate, and pancreas, have been established 3,4. Patient-derived tumour organoids have also been generated from the colon, pancreas, prostate, breast, gastric, lung, oesophageal, bladder, ovarian, kidney, and liver tumour tissues 1. Organoids maintain the key genetic and phenotypic features of primary tumours, thereby, enabling their use in a broad range of applications, such drug development and identification of the best therapeutic regimen for each patient. Ovarian cancer is a devastating disease, with 295,000 new patients and 185,000 deaths each year, worldwide 5. The relative 5-year survival rate is 47% and has not apparently increased in the last 40 years. Debulking surgery with platinum-combination chemotherapy is usually administered to patients, irrespective of the histological

No abstract

The Fourth Edition of the Guidelines for Treatment of Uterine Body Neoplasm was published in 2018. These guidelines include 9 chapters: 1. Overview of the guidelines, 2. Initial treatment for endometrial cancer, 3. Postoperative adjuvant therapy for endometrial cancer, 4. Post-treatment surveillance for endometrial cancer, 5. Treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, 6. Fertility-sparing therapy, 7. Treatment of uterine carcinosarcoma and uterine sarcoma, 8. Treatment of trophoblastic disease, 9. Document collection; and nine algorithms: 1-3. Initial treatment of endometrial cancer, 4. Postoperative adjuvant treatment for endometrial cancer, 5. Treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer, 6. Fertility-sparing therapy, 7. Treatment for uterine carcinosarcoma, 8. Treatment for uterine sarcoma, 9. Treatment for choriocarcinoma. Each chapter includes overviews and clinical questions, and recommendations, objectives, explanation, and references are provided for each clinical question. This revision has no major changes compared to the 3rd edition, but does have some differences: 1) an explanation of the recommendation decision process and conflict of interest considerations have been added in the overview, 2) nurses, pharmacists and patients participated in creation of the guidelines, in addition to physicians, 3) the approach to evidence collection is listed at the end of the guidelines, and 4) for clinical questions that lack evidence or clinical validation, the opinion of the Guidelines Committee is given as a “Recommendations for tomorrow”.