A Task Force team consisting of members from pharmaceutical companies --a central player to develop and implement RMP (Risk Management Plan)-- as well as health care professionals and members from academia was established in JSPE. The Task Force developed guidance for scientific approach to practical and ICH-E2E-compliant Pharmacovigilance Plan (PVP) stated in Japanese Risk Management Plan issued in April 2012 by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The guidance contains the following topics.
1．Introduction: JSPE's activities and this task force's objectives for pharmacovigilance activities
2．How to select Safety Specification (SS) and describe its characteristics
・Selection of SS
・Characterization of SS
・Association with Research Questions (RQ)
3．How to define and describe RQ
・What is RQ ?
・RQ interpretation in other relevant guidelines
・Methodology to develop RQ for PVP with examples
・Best approach to integrating PVP for whole aspects of safety concern
4．How to optimize PVP for specific RQ
・Routine PVP or additional PVP ?
・Additional PVP design (RQ and study design, RQ structured with PICO or GPP's research objectives, specific aims, and rationale)
・Checklist to help develop PVP
5．Epilogue:
・What can/should be “Drug use investigation” in the context of ICH-E2E-compliant PVP.
・Significance of background incidence rate and needs for comparator group
・Infrastructure for the future PVP activities
6．Appendix: Checklist to help develop PVP activities in RMP
The task force team is hoping that this guidance help develop and conduct SS and PVP in accordance with ICH E2E, as stated in Japanese Risk Management Plan Guideline.

Background: /Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy of ablation and surgery in solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) measuring ≤5 cm with a large HCC cohort database. Methods: The study included consecutive 2,067 patients with solitary HCC who were treated with either ablation (n=1,248) or surgery (n=819). Th e patients were divided into three groups based on the tumor size and compared the outcomes of the two therapies using propensity score matching. Results: No significant difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) was found between surgery and ablation groups for tumors measuring ≤2 cm or >2 cm but ≤3 cm. For tumors measuring >3 cm but ≤5 cm, RFS was significantly better with surgery than with ablation (3.6 and 2.0 years, respectively, P=0.0297). However, no significant difference in OS was found between surgery and ablation in this group (6.7 and 6.0 years, respectively, P=0.668). Conclusion The study suggests that surgery and ablation can be equally used as a treatment for solitary HCC no more than 3 cm in diameter. For HCCs measuring 3-5 cm, the OS was not different between therapies; thus, ablation and less invasive therapy can be considered a treatment option; however, special caution should be taken to prevent recurrence.