Cross-sectional survey reveals widespread novel gynecological cancer therapy use alongside gaps in adverse event teams, highlighting infrastructure disparities.
Objective: To characterize real-world implementation of novel therapies in gynecological oncology in Japan and identify actionable gaps through a nationwide survey.Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology-affiliated institutions.The items covered institution characteristics; use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), kinase inhibitors, and antibody-based agents; local adverse event (AE) manuals; availability of expert panels and immune-related adverse event (irAE) teams; and perceptions of educational sufficiency.Results: Valid responses were obtained from 245 institutions, spanning universities, cancer centers, and general hospitals.Most institutions reported the routine use of PARP inhibitors, ICIs, kinase inhibitors, and antibody drugs.However, only 40.4% of institutions had an in-hospital irAE management team, 57.1% had an AE/irAE manual, and 31.0%and 12.2% considered prior educational opportunities sufficient for physicians and nurses/other medical staff, respectively.High-volume institutions and academic centers were significantly more likely to have medical oncology support, expert-panel access, irAE teams, manuals,
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kobayashi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: