1.Role of vaginal pallor reaction in predicting late vaginal stenosis after high-dose-rate brachytherapy in treatment-naive patients with cervical cancer.
Ken YOSHIDA ; Hideya YAMAZAKI ; Satoaki NAKAMURA ; Koji MASUI ; Tadayuki KOTSUMA ; Hironori AKIYAMA ; Eiichi TANAKA ; Nobuhiko YOSHIKAWA ; Yasuo UESUGI ; Taiju SHIMBO ; Yoshifumi NARUMI ; Yasuo YOSHIOKA
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2015;26(3):179-184
OBJECTIVE: To assess actual rates of late vaginal stenosis and identify predisposing factors for complications among patients with previously untreated cervical cancer following high-dose-rate brachytherapy. METHODS: We performed longitudinal analyses of 57 patients using the modified Dische score at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 60 months after treatment, which consisted of 15 interstitial brachytherapys and 42 conventional intracavitary brachytherapys, with a median follow-up time of 36 months (range, 6 to 144 months). RESULTS: More than half of the patients developed grade 1 (mild) vaginal stenosis within the first year of follow-up, and grade 2 (97.5%, moderate) to grade 3 (severe) stenosis gradually increased with time. Actual stenosis rates for grade 1, 2, and 3 were 97.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.7 to 97.5), 60.7% (95% CI, 42.2 to 79.3), and 7.4% (95% CI, 0 to 18.4) at 3 years after treatment. Pallor reaction grade 2-3 at 6 months was only a statistically significant predisposing factor for grade 2-3 late vaginal stenosis 3 years or later with a hazard ratio of 3.48 (95% CI, 1.32 to 9.19; p=0.018) by a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. Patients with grade 0-1 pallor reaction at 6 months showed a grade > or =2 vaginal stenosis rate of 53%, whereas the grade 2-3 pallor reaction group achieved a grade > or =2 vaginal stenosis rate at 3 years at 100% (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: High-dose-rate brachytherapy was associated with high incidence of late vaginal stenosis. Pallor reaction grade 2-3 at 6 months was predictive of late grade 2-3 vaginal stenosis at 3 years after treatment. These findings should prove helpful for patient counseling and preventive intervention.
Adult
;
Aged
;
Aged, 80 and over
;
Brachytherapy/*adverse effects/methods
;
Constriction, Pathologic/etiology/pathology
;
Female
;
Humans
;
Iridium Radioisotopes/therapeutic use
;
Middle Aged
;
*Pallor
;
Prognosis
;
Prospective Studies
;
Radiopharmaceuticals/therapeutic use
;
Retrospective Studies
;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/*radiotherapy
;
Vaginal Diseases/*etiology/pathology
2.Clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers 2019: the 3rd English edition
Masato NAGINO ; Satoshi HIRANO ; Hideyuki YOSHITOMI ; Taku AOKI ; Katsuhiko UESAKA ; Michiaki UNNO ; Tomoki EBATA ; Masaru KONISHI ; Keiji SANO ; Kazuaki SHIMADA ; Hiroaki SHIMIZU ; Ryota HIGUCHI ; Toshifumi WAKAI ; Hiroyuki ISAYAMA ; Takuji OKUSAKA ; Toshio TSUYUGUCHI ; Yoshiki HIROOKA ; Junji FURUSE ; Hiroyuki MAGUCHI ; Kojiro SUZUKI ; Hideya YAMAZAKI ; Hiroshi KIJIMA ; Akio YANAGISAWA ; Masahiro YOSHIDA ; Yukihiro YOKOYAMA ; Takashi MIZUNO ; Itaru ENDO
Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery 2021;20(4):359-375
The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.