Objective: As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rages on, it is a challenging task to balance resources for treatment of COVID-19 and malignancy-based treatment. For the development of optimal strategies, assessing the conditions and constrains in treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is pertinent. This study reported about a nationwide survey conducted by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Methods: We interviewed 265 designated training facilities about the state of their clinical practice from the time period between March and December 2020. We asked the facility doctors in charge to fill a web-based questionnaire. Results: A total of 232 facilities (87.5%) responded. A decrease in the number of outpatient visits was reported, and the major reason attributed was reluctance of patients to visit hospitals rather than facility restrictions. The actual number of surgeries decreased by 3.9%, compared to 2019. There was a significant difference when the variable of “Prefectures operating under special safety precautions” or not was introduced. There was no increase in the rate of advanced stages in the three cancer types studied. However, 34.1% participants perceived COVID-19 affected management and prognosis. Conclusion Refraining from visiting hospitals based on the patient's judgment may be expected to be an issue in the future. No significant decrease in surgeries was observed, and it would seem that there were few forced changes in treatment plans, but “the State of Emergency” had an impact. There was no increase in the rate of advanced cancers, but this will need to be monitored.

The fifth edition of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines for the treatment of ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer was published in 2020. The guidelines contain 6 chapters—namely, (1) overview of the guidelines; (2) epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (3) recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (4) borderline epithelial tumors of the ovary; (5) malignant germ cell tumors of the ovary; and (6) malignant sex cord-stromal tumors. Furthermore, the guidelines comprise 5 algorithms—namely, (1) initial treatment for ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (2) treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (3) initial treatment for borderline epithelial ovarian tumor; (4) treatment for malignant germ cell tumor; and (5) treatment for sex cord-stromal tumor. Major changes in the new edition include the following: (1) revision of the title to “guidelines for the treatment of ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer”; (2) involvement of patients and general (male/female) participants in addition to physicians, pharmacists, and nurses; (3) clinical questions (CQs) in the PICO format; (4) change in the expression of grades of recommendation and level of evidence in accordance with the GRADE system; (5) introduction of the idea of a body of evidence; (6) categorization of references according to research design; (7) performance of systematic reviews and meta-analysis for three CQs; and (8) voting for each CQ/recommendation and description of the consensus.

Objective: Owing to the potential benefits of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer, the practice pattern has recently shifted in Japan. This study examined the trends in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in patients with endometrial cancer in Japan. Methods: This retrospective observational study examined the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology Tumor Registry database between 2015–2019. This study examined the time-specific proportion change and predictors of MIS use in initial endometrial cancer treatment in Japan, and compared it with the use of abdominal surgery. Additionally, the association between hospital surgical treatment volume and MIS use was examined. Results: A total of 14,059 patients (26.5%) underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy, and 39,070 patients (73.5%) underwent abdominal hysterectomy in the study period. Patients who underwent MIS were more likely to be treated at high-volume centers, younger, central, or western Japan residents, registered in recent years, and had a tumor with stage I disease, type 1 histology, and less myometrial invasion (all adjusted p<0.05). The proportion of MIS treatments increased from 19.1% in 2015 to 34.3% in 2019 (p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at high-volume centers was a contributing factor for MIS (adjusted odds ratio=3.85; 95% confidence interval=3.44–4.30). MIS at high-volume centers increased significantly from 24.8% to 41.0% (p<0.001) during the study period, whereas MIS at low-volume centers remained at median 8.8%. Conclusion MIS has increased significantly in recent years, accounting for nearly 34% of surgical management of endometrial cancer in Japan. High-volume treatment centers take the lead in performing MIS.