Objective: Prevention of subsequent primary cancer (SPC) is crucial for cancer survivors, particularly those who developed the disease during childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood (CAYA). The aim of this study was to assess the current status of SPC prevention among female CAYA cancer survivors. Methods: A survey regarding long-term health issues after cancer treatment was conducted using questionnaires that targeted women aged ≥20 years who had developed cancer before the age of 40 years. The survey assessed various health issues, and this paper focuses on the items related to the respondents’ perceptions and attitudes toward SPC prevention. Results: A total of 1,026 respondents were analyzed. Over 60% of respondents were aware of SPC and the need for screening. The percentages of respondents who underwent regular SPC screening were 53.8%, 51.8%, 29.5%, 43.7%, and 41.1% for cervical, breast, colon, lung, and gastric cancers, respectively. After adjusting for age, type of first cancer, and current follow-up, we found that receiving recommendations for SPC screening was the most critical factor in SPC screening uptake (odds ratio=3.836; 95% confidence interval=2.281–6.451;p<0.001 by logistic regression analysis). However, only 40.4% of the respondents received recommendations for SPC screening from their physicians. Conclusion Despite good awareness of SPC prevention, the uptake rate for cancer screening among cancer survivors was inadequate, indicating that preventive measures for SPC should be promoted. Because recommendations from others strongly influence SPC screening uptake, healthcare professionals should have accurate knowledge and provide guidance regarding SPC prevention.

The Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO) guideline for the treatment of uterine body neoplasm are revised from the 2018 guideline. This guideline aimed to provide standardized care for uterine body neoplasm, indicate appropriate current treatment methods for uterine body neoplasm, minimize variances in treatment methods among institutions, improve disease prognosis and treatment safety, reduce the economic and psychosomatic burden on patients by promoting the performance of appropriate treatment, and enhance mutual understanding between patients and healthcare professionals. The guidelines were prepared through the consensus of the JSGO guideline committee, based on a careful review of evidence from the literature searches and the medical health insurance system and actual clinical practice situations in Japan. The main features of the 2023 revision are as follows: 1) The Guidelines Formulation Committee members were asked to understand Minds' medical guideline development method in advance. 2) The clinical question (CQ) was changed to Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome format as much as possible. 3) Introduced the "body of evidence," which summarizes the results of research reports collected for the CQs by outcome and study design, and the strength of evidence for each body of evidence was rated from levels A to D. 4) Introduction of systematic reviews in some CQs. 5) The strength of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, value and hope for patients, and clinical applicability were considered while drafting recommendations. Herein, we present the English version of the JSGO guidelines 2023 for the treatment of uterine body neoplasm.

Objective: This study aimed to assess gynecologic oncologists (GOs)’ perceptions and attitudes toward cancer survivorship to help improve survivor care. Methods: We conducted a web-based questionnaire survey about survivorship issues for the GOs belonging to the Japan Gynecologic Oncology Group. We analyzed the proactiveness of the participants toward addressing 25 survivor issues. In addition, the practice patterns and barriers to care for survivors’ long-term health issues, such as second primary cancer (SPC) and lifestyle-related diseases (LSRD), and return-to-work (RTW) support were assessed. Results: We received 313 responses. The respondents had a mean of 22 years of physician experience. The ratio of men to women was approximately 7:3, and 84.7% worked at facilities for multidisciplinary cancer treatment. The respondents’ proactiveness for addressing psychosocial problems was significantly lower than physical and gynecological issues (p<0.01 by χ2 test). However, most GOs tried to contribute to such issues according to patients’ demands. Women GOs were more proactively involved in some survivorship issues than the men (p<0.05 by logistic regression analysis). The rates of the respondents who proactively discussed SPC, LSRD, and RTW were unexpectedly high (60.7%, 36.1%, and 52.4%, respectively). However, the GOs only provided verbal support for these issues in many cases. Conclusion The Japanese GOs were enthusiastic about survivorship care. However, their tendency to deal with survivors’ problems through their own knowledge and judgments raises concerns about the quality of care. Therefore, creating survivorship care guidelines and enhancing multidisciplinary collaboration should be prioritized.