To explore patients’ perceptions of managing adverse events (AEs) from anticancer drugs for gynaecological cancer, focusing on AEs they want to avoid, views on dose adjustments and communication with healthcare professionals.

Observational study using a web-based questionnaire.

Women in Japan who had received chemotherapy for endometrial or ovarian/fallopian tube cancer were enrolled. Healthcare professionals, including obstetrics and gynaecology physicians, nurses and pharmacists, who administered chemotherapy to these patients, were also enrolled.

AEs that patients wished to avoid or found distressing; varied perceptions of AEs before and after treatment; discrepancies in the communication of AEs between patients and healthcare professionals; administration time and intervals between hospital visits patients found distressing; patient awareness of dose adjustment (reduction, interruption or discontinuation) to suppress AEs.

Participants comprised 153 physicians, 166 nurses, 154 pharmacists and 154 patients. Nausea/vomiting (28.6%), alopecia (18.2%) and peripheral neuropathy (9.1%) were the most distressing AEs overall. Physicians rated nausea/vomiting lower (15.4%) and alopecia higher (38.2%) than patients, while pharmacists emphasised peripheral neuropathy (25.7%). Many patients found AEs, including peripheral neuropathy (53/99), fatigue (52/105) and alopecia (46/120), to be more severe than expected. Communication patterns revealed that 49.4% of patients reported all symptoms, even uncertain ones, but younger patients tended to communicate fewer symptoms. Physicians (54.2%), nurses (92.2%) and pharmacists (85.7%) preferred full disclosure of symptoms. While 28.6% of patients wished to avoid dose reductions because of fears of disease progression, 18.2% preferred dose reduction or discontinuation when AEs became intolerable. Drug administration times and visit intervals influenced patient distress. Treatment administration of over 3 hours (19.5%) and visits occurring more frequently than once every 3 weeks (27.3%) were the most distressing.

This study highlights discrepancies in AE perceptions and communication between patients and healthcare professionals, emphasising the need for tailored communication strategies and shared decision-making to improve cancer treatment experiences and outcomes.

jRCT1040220088, Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT).

This study aimed to investigate the effects of long-term and habitual physical activity on mortality and long-term care insurance (LTCI) certification among cancer survivors using a population database.

5-year retrospective study.

13 Japanese municipalities participated in the Longevity Improvement & Fair Evidence study.

Among 471 511 participants who underwent health check-ups, 39 435 met the following eligible criteria: documented in the cancer claims database without a suspected diagnosis and participated in a health check-up at least once in a 12-month period, had no missing exercise data and had already been certified for LTCI.

Outcomes were new LTCI certification and all-cause mortality. LTCI certification was assigned by a trained local government official through a systematic process (involving various items—physical function, daily activity function, cognitive function, behavioural disorders, adjustment to social life and daily use of medical services—as well as overall consideration of computer-based and specialist team assessments), and the LTCI severity level correlates with the Barthel index. LTCI certification reflects some impairment in activities of daily living. All-cause mortality was defined based on claims data.

Three physical activity categories, ‘exercise and walking’, ‘exercise or walking’ and ‘no physical activity’, were used. Among survivors aged 65–74 years, the ‘no physical activity’ group had a higher risk of mortality and LTCI certification than the ‘exercise and walking’ group (adjusted model HR: 1.72, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.94). Among survivors aged ≥75 years, the low physical activity groups had a higher risk of mortality and LTCI certification than the ‘exercise and walking’ group (adjusted model: ‘exercise or walking’, HR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.85; ‘no physical activity’, HR: 1.66, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.92). The effects of physical activity differed according to cancer type.

Habitual physical activity had positive effects on cancer survivors. These effects differed according to age and cancer type.