End-of-life discussion with patients with advanced cancer is one of the important factors to determine the patient quality of life and their families' grief. The primary aim of this study is to collect Japanese medical oncologists' views toward end-of-life discussion. A context analysis of free comments of the questionnaire survey was conducted. Questionnaires were mailed to 864 medical oncologists, and 490 responses were obtained. A content analysis identified 420 free comments. As barriers of end-of-life discussion for oncologists, three types of barriers were emerged: 1) issues relating to patient and family (e.g., [individuality of the patient and family], [difficulty of acceptance of illness progression]), 2) issues relating to medical professionals (e.g., [a lack of psychological support], [difference in beliefs about end-of-life discussion among medical professionals]), and 3) health care systems (e.g., [a lack of time and human resources], [a lack of education and research]). The findings of this study may be useful to improve mutual understanding of oncologists and palliative care physicians when performing the end-of-life discussion in collaboration.

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.