Clinicopathologic features, treatment, prognosis and prognostic factors of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the endometrium: a retrospective analysis of 42 cases from the Kansai Clinical Oncology Group/Intergroup study in Japan / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a retrospective, multi-institutional, collaborative study to accumulate cases of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the endometrium, to clarify its clinicopathologic features, treatment, prognosis and prognostic factors to collate findings to establish future individualized treatment regimens. To our knowledge, this is the largest case study and the first study to statistically analyze the prognosis of this disease. METHODS: At medical institutions participating in the Kansai Clinical Oncology Group/Intergroup, cases diagnosed at a central pathologic review as neuroendocrine carcinoma of the endometrium between 1995 and 2014 were enrolled. We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathologic features, treatment, prognosis and prognostic factors of this disease. RESULTS: A total of 65 cases were registered from 18 medical institutions in Japan. Of these, 42 (64.6%) cases were diagnosed as neuroendocrine carcinoma of the endometrium based on the central pathological review and thus included in the study. Advanced International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages (stage III and IV) and pure type small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma cases had a significantly worse prognosis. Upon multivariate analysis, only histologic subtypes and surgery were significant prognostic factors. Pure type cases had a significantly worse prognosis compared to mixed type cases and complete surgery cases had a significantly better prognosis compared to cases with no or incomplete surgery. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that complete surgery improves the prognosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the endometrium. Even among cases with advanced disease stages, if complete surgery is expected to be achieved, clinicians should consider curative surgery to improve the prognosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the endometrium.

<b>The Difference in Analgesic Use of Acetaminophen between in Japan and Other Countries, and Possible Drug Cost Reduction </b><b>Caused by the Acetaminophen Prevalence in Japan </b> / 薬剤疫学

Acetaminophen is commonly used as the global standard of analgesics. For example, the WHO lists acetaminophen as an essential drug and various clinical guidelines in many countries include acetaminophen as a first-line drug for pain relief because of it's efficacy and safety profile. In particular, there is not significant risk of such as gastrointestinal disorders, renal dysfunctions, bleeding, or cardiovascular events, and it is considered to be a safer option than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs(NSAIDs). In Japan, however, NSAIDs are widely used to treat pain while the use of acetaminophen for pain relief is quite limited. This difference could be attributed to the low approved dose of acetaminophen in Japan, which is less than half of that used elsewhere. This lower approved dose causes difficulty in obtaining analgesic effect with acetaminophen. In January 2011, however, the approved dose of acetaminophen in Japan was increased to the world standard dose, making it easier to obtain an analgesic effect. In the near future, an increase in the use of acetaminophen for pain relief can be expected in Japan. NSAIDs are common drugs for pain in Japan, but often require co-prescription of a gastric mucosal protective agents, H₂- blockers, or proton pump inhibitors(PPI) to prevent gastrointestinal disorders. On the other hand, acetaminophen has much less risk of such adverse reactions and there is no need for co-prescription of digestive medicines. Thus, increased use of acetaminophen could decrease the cost for pain relief in Japan. (Jpn J Pharmacoepidemiol 2012; 17(2): 75-86)