The number of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in Japan is increasing. Progression of DM leads to the development of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, which causes foot sensory disturbances. This study examined the effect of DM on plantar tactile point pressure sensitivity (TPPS) and identified the site with the highest threshold of plantar TPPS. The subjects were 42 DM patients (aged 71.7±8.2 years) and 122 local elderly residents (aged 72.6±4.8 years). TPPS of eight sites, including the right and left halluces, hallux and fifth toe metatarsal heads, and heels was measured using the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test. The measurement was performed three times at each site. The results were adopted when all repeated measurements were valid. The Friedman test was used for comparison among the four sites within the same group. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of sites between groups. A significance level of 5% was adopted. The ages of the DM patients were not significantly different, but the patients had significantly higher TPPS threshold for halluces, and hallux and fifth toe metatarsal heads, compared to the local elderly residents. The TPPS threshold was highest in the heels in both the DM patients and local elderly residents. The threshold of plantar TPPS increases in DM. It is important to evaluate both the forefoot and the heels.

Purpose: Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of axillary lymph nodes (AxLNs) is performed to diagnose nodal metastasis in patients with breast cancer. Although the sensitivity of ultrasound-guided FNAC for identifying AxLN metastasis is in the range of 36%–99%, whether sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) should be performed for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) patients with negative FNAC results is uncertain. This study aimed to determine the role of FNAC before NAC in the evaluation and management of AxLN in early breast cancer patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3,810 clinically node-negative (a lymph node with no clinical metastasis without FNAC or radiological suspicion of metastasis with negative FNAC results) patients with breast cancer who underwent SLNB between 2008 and 2019. We compared the positivity rate of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) between patients who received and those who did not receive NAC with negative FNAC results or without FNAC and axillary recurrence rate in the neoadjuvant group with negative SLNB results. Results: In the non-neoadjuvant (primary surgery) group, the positivity rate of SLNs in patients with negative FNAC results was higher than that in patients without FNAC (33.2% vs. 12.9%; p < 0.001). However, the SLN positivity rate of patients with negative FNAC results (false-negative rate for FNAC) in the neoadjuvant group was lower than that in the primary surgery group (3.0% vs. 33.2%; p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 3 years, one axillary nodal recurrence was observed, which was a case from the neoadjuvant non-FNAC group. None of the patients in the neoadjuvant group with negative FNAC results had axillary recurrence. Conclusion The false-negative rate for FNAC in the primary surgery group was high;however, SLNB was the proper axillary staging procedure for NAC patients who have clinically suspicious AxLN metastases on radiologic examination but negative FNAC results.

Purpose: Safely postponing the use of chemotherapy is important for quality of life maintenance in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. In previous studies, a combination of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) and fulvestrant prolonged the time to chemotherapy (TTC). In this study, we used real-world data to evaluate TTC in the context of CDK4/6i therapy. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of women with estrogen receptorpositive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer treated at the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital. The patients were categorized into having received CDK4/6i therapy first (n = 41), second (n = 33), and none at all (n = 67). The change in TTC among the groups was examined. Results: The median follow-up time was 13.8, 27.5, and 30.3 months in the CDK4/6i (first), CDK4/6i (second), and non-CDK4/6i groups, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line therapy for metastasis was 30.0, 11.9, and 13.0 months, respectively (CDK4/6i [first] vs. non-CDK4/6i; p = 0.018, CDK4/6i [second] vs. non-CDK4/6i;p = 0.383). The median TTC was not reached in the CDK4/6i (first) group, was 39.1 months in the CDK4/6i (second) group, and was 44.2 months in the non-CDK4/6i group (CDK4/6i [first] vs. non-CDK4/6i; p = 0.880; CDK4/6i [second] vs. non-CDK4/6i; p = 0.407). The nonCDK4/6i group with TTC ≥ 60 months included more cases of secondary endocrine therapy resistance (p = 0.017), no perioperative chemotherapy (p = 0.021), and a longer disease-free interval (p = 0.093). Conclusion Although PFS was significantly longer in the CDK4/6i (first) group than in the non-CDK4/6i group, TTC did not significantly differ among the three groups in real-world data. The non-CDK4/6i group showed a long TTC in patients with late recurrence and low risk at the primary lesion site, who benefited greatly from hormone monotherapy.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of pancreatic duct lavage cytology combined with a cell-block method (PLC-CB) for possible pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs). Methods: This study included 41 patients with suspected PDACs who underwent PLC-CB mainly because they were unfit for undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration. A 6-Fr double lumen catheter was mainly used to perform PLC-CB. Final diagnoses were obtained from the findings of resected specimens or clinical outcomes during surveillance after PLC-CB. Results: Histocytological evaluations using PLC-CB were performed in 87.8% (36/41) of the patients. For 31 of the 36 patients, final diagnoses (invasive PDAC, 12; pancreatic carcinoma in situ, 5; benignancy, 14) were made, and the remaining five patients were excluded due to lack of surveillance periods after PLC-CB. For 31 patients, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PLC-CB for detecting malignancy were 94.1%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively. In addition, they were 87.5%, 100%, and 94.1%, respectively, in 17 patients without pancreatic masses detectable using endoscopic ultrasonography. Four patients developed postprocedural pancreatitis, which improved with conservative therapy. Conclusions PLC-CB has an excellent ability to detect malignancies in patients with possible PDACs, including pancreatic carcinoma in situ.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.