Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for patients with non-round cell soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an essential supportive agent for chemotherapy-induced severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, "Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for non-round cell soft tissue sarcoma (NRC-STS)?" and CQ #2, "Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve NRC-STS treatment outcomes?" for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: A literature search was performed on the primary prophylactic use of G-CSF for NRC-STSs. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival, incidence of febrile neutropenia, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: Eighty-one and 154 articles were extracted from the literature search for CQs #1 and #2, respectively. After the first and second screening, one and two articles were included in the final evaluation, respectively. Only some studies have addressed these two clinical questions through a literature review. CONCLUSION: The clinical questions were converted to future research questions because of insufficient available data. The statements were proposed: "The benefit of primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STS" and "The benefit of intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STSs." G-CSF is often administered as primary prophylaxis when chemotherapy with severe myelosuppression is administered. However, its effectiveness and safety are yet to be scientifically proven.

[Current status and future perspective of clinical trials for patients with multiple myeloma].

There are two main types of clinical trials: industry-sponsored trials and investigator-initiated trials. Both of these, like the two sets of wheels on a car, are essential to development of treatments. Numerous clinical trials have been conducted in multiple myeloma, contributing to the development of new drugs and the current treatment landscape. Highly effective novel immunotherapies, such as bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, have emerged, and could be incorporated into the treatment landscape in the near future. However, given the improved performance of current standard therapies, the drawbacks (e.g., toxicity) of immunotherapy can be expected to outweigh the benefits (efficacy) in some patients. Therefore, clinical trials are designed to evaluate treatments stratified based on factors such as post-treatment efficacy and disease risk, and stratified treatment approaches are increasingly being considered as well as one-size-fits-all approaches to treatment development. In addition, the use of real-world data is being explored to make clinical trials more efficient. These approaches are expected to further improve the individualization and efficiency of multiple myeloma treatment.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for patients with Ewing sarcomas: a systematic review for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma can lead to severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, "Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma?" and CQ #2, "Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve Ewing sarcoma treatment outcomes?". METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi web databases, including English and Japanese articles published from 1990 to 2019. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival (OS), febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence, infection-related mortality, quality of life (QOL), and pain. RESULTS: Twenty-five English and five Japanese articles were identified for CQ #1. After screening, a cohort study of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide chemotherapy with 851 patients was selected. Incidence of FN was 60.8% with G-CSF and 65.8% without; statistical tests were not conducted. Data on OS, infection-related mortality, QOL, or pain was unavailable. Consequently, CQ #1 was redefined as a future research question. As for CQ #2, we found two English and five Japanese papers, of which one high-quality randomized controlled trial on G-CSF use in intensified chemotherapy was included. This trial showed trends toward lower mortality and a significant increase in event-free survival for 2-week interval regimen with the G-CSF primary prophylactic use compared with 3-week interval. CONCLUSION: This review indicated that G-CSF's efficacy as primary prophylaxis in Ewing sarcoma, except in children, is uncertain despite its common use. This review tentatively endorses intensified chemotherapy with G-CSF primary prophylaxis for Ewing sarcoma.

Long-term efficacy and safety of tucidinostat in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma: final analysis of phase IIb results.

Not available.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy for breast cancer can cause neutropenia, increasing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and serious infections. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis has been explored to mitigate these risks. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the "Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development" using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing using G-CSF as primary prophylaxis in invasive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and FN incidence. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis, and five RCTs were meta-analyzed for FN incidence. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in FN incidence with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (risk difference [RD] = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.43, p = 0.04). Evidence for improvement in OS with G-CSF was inconclusive. Four RCTs suggested a tendency for increased pain with G-CSF, but statistical significance was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is strongly recommended for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN. While the impact on OS is unclear, the benefits of reducing FN are considered to outweigh the potential harm of increased pain.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. CONCLUSION: A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Effectiveness and safety of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor priming regimen for acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guideline for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remain poor. Although the concomitant use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and anti-chemotherapeutic agents has been investigated to improve the antileukemic effect on AML, its usefulness remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effects of G-CSF priming as a remission induction therapy or salvage chemotherapy. METHODS: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to the priming effect of G-CSF using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and risk ratios (RRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and summarized. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted and accessed the 278 records identified during the initial screening, and 62 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility in second screening. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 10 in the meta-analysis. A systematic review revealed that priming with G-CSF did not correlate with an improvement in response rate and overall survival (OS). The result of the meta-analysis revealed the tendency for lower relapse rate in the G-CSF priming groups without inter-study heterogeneity [RR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), p = 0.08; I2 = 4%, p = 0.35]. In specific populations, including patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk and those receiving high-dose cytarabine, the G-CSF priming regimen prolonged OS. CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF priming in combination with intensive remission induction treatment is not universally effective in patients with AML. Further studies are required to identify the patient cohort for which G-CSF priming is recommended.

Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations. RESULTS: After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records. CONCLUSION: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

Analyzing the risk factors for disease progression within 2 years and histological transformation in patients treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone as first-line treatment: A 15-year follow-up of patients with advanced follicular lymphoma in JCOG0203.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent lymphoma that becomes aggressive due to histological transformation (HT), leading to reduced survival. Patients with FL have different clinical courses and various treatment options. Some patients exhibit shorter survival and experience disease progression within 24 months of diagnosis/treatment (POD24); the optimal treatment remains an unmet needs. Thus, identifying factors that predict shorter survival is essential to stratify treatment and prolong the survival of patients with FL. To analyze risk factors for POD24 and HT in patients treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment, we performed this post-hoc analysis of patients with advanced indolent B-cell lymphoma in a randomized clinical trial wherein six cycles of R-CHOP were administered every 2-3 weeks. The primary analysis showed no differences in outcomes, which enabled the analysis of 248 patients with FL, assigned to two arms. All histopathological specimens from the 300 enrolled patients were reviewed by three expert hematopathologists. Multivariable analysis implicated Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) intermediate (odds ratio [OR] 2.531, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.676-9.466) and high- (OR 2.236, 95% CI 0.160-31.226) risks, B symptoms (OR 2.091, 95% CI 0.747-5.851), and grade 3A (G3A) (OR 1.833, 95% CI 0.634-5.299) as risk factors for POD24. Furthermore, multivariable analysis through a median follow-up of 15.9 years implicated G3A (OR 2.628, 95% CI 0.806-8.575) and high-risk FLIPI (OR 4.401, 95% CI 0.186-104.377) as risk factors for HT. However, an analysis limited to the first 10 years revealed that the prognostic factors elucidated from the longer-term analysis had a greater impact on HT. G3A and high-risk FLIPI may independently predict POD24 and HT, thereby informing treatment stratification of patients with untreated advanced-stage FL in future trials, particularly to address the unmet needs of patients with POD24.

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUD: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days. METHODS: This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes. RESULTS: Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/µL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

Pooled analysis of pralatrexate single-agent studies in patients with relapsed/refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

ABSTRACT: Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) mature natural killer cell and T-cell lymphoma have limited treatment options. To evaluate pralatrexate's performance and factors influencing its safety and efficacy in R/R peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), we performed a pooled analysis of data from 4 similarly designed, regulatory-mandated prospective clinical trials. Of 221 patients (median age, 59 years; 67.0% male) in the study population, 48.9% had PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), 21.3% angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, and 11.8% ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). Patients received pralatrexate for a median of 2.56 months (range, 0.03-24.18) and had a 40.7% objective response rate with a median duration of response of 9.1 months, progression-free survival 4.6 months, and overall survival 16.3 months. The most common treatment-related all-grade adverse events were stomatitis, thrombocytopenia, white blood cell count decrease, pyrexia, and vomiting. Subgroup exploratory analyses suggest improved efficacy with 1 prior line of chemotherapy vs 2 or ≥4 prior lines; PTCL-NOS or ALCL vs transformed mycosis fungoides; chemotherapy and transplant before pralatrexate vs chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy with other nontransplant treatments. In conclusion, these pooled analysis results further support using pralatrexate in patients with R/R PTCL. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of subgroups analyses.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan society of clinical oncology.

Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains controversial due to a theoretically increased risk of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for AML with remission induction therapy. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of pooled data was conducted, and the risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated in the meta-analysis and summarized. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, nine of which were examined in the meta-analysis. Although G-CSF significantly shortened the duration of neutropenia, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not correlate with infection-related mortality. Moreover, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not affect disease progression/recurrence, overall survival, or adverse events, such as musculoskeletal pain. However, evidence to support or discourage the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for adult AML patients with induction therapy remains limited. Therefore, the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis can be considered for adult AML patients with remission induction therapy who are at a high risk of infectious complications.

Optimal timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF after chemotherapy administration for patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration. METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data. RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during dose-dense chemotherapy for urothelial cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, dose reduction or withdrawal is often preferred in the management of adverse events in the treatment of urothelial cancer. It is also important to maintain therapeutic intensity in order to control disease progression and thereby relieve symptoms, such as hematuria, infection, bleeding, and pain, as well as to prolong the survival. In this clinical question, we compared treatment with primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF to maintain therapeutic intensity with conventional standard therapy without G-CSF and examined the benefits and risks as major outcomes. A detailed literature search for relevant studies was performed using PubMed, Ichu-shi Web, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and evaluated independently by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and the risk ratios with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated and summarized in a meta-analysis. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, two of which were reviewed in the meta-analysis of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) therapy, and one randomized controlled study showed a reduction in the incidence of FN. Primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF may be beneficial, as shown in a randomized controlled study of dose-dense MVAC therapy. However, there are no studies on other regimens, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen (dose-dense MVAC).

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer, Japanese clinical guideline for appropriate use of G-CSF: clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel (DTX) is commonly used as a primary chemotherapy, and cabazitaxel (CBZ) has shown efficacy in patients who are DTX resistant. Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy is currently used with CBZ treatment in routine clinical care in Japan. METHODS: In this study, we performed a systematic review following the Minds guidelines to investigate the effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer and to construct G-CSF guidelines for primary prophylaxis use during chemotherapy. A comprehensive literature search of various electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi) was performed on January 10, 2020, to identify studies published between January 1990 and December 31, 2019 that investigate the impact of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during CBZ administration on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Ultimately, nine articles were included in the qualitative systematic review. Primary G-CSF prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was difficult to assess in terms of correlation with overall survival, mortality from infection, and patients' quality of life. These difficulties were owing to the lack of randomized controlled trials comparing patients with and without primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during CBZ administration. However, some retrospective studies have suggested that it may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: G-CSF may be beneficial as primary prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen.

Complex karyotype determined using conventional cytogenetic analysis is a poor prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma.

High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) influence the prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM). However, additional cytogenetic aberrations can lead to poor outcomes. This study aimed to clarify whether HRCAs and additional chromosomal abnormalities affect MM prognosis. Patients with newly diagnosed MM who were treated with novel agents were retrospectively evaluated. The primary objective was to assess the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between patients with/without HRCAs and between patients with/without complex karyotype (CK). The secondary objectives were to identify factors affecting PFS/OS and factors related to CK. HRCAs were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and gain/amplification(1q) assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. CK was defined as ≥3 chromosomal abnormalities on G-banding. Among 110 patients, 40 had HRCAs and 15 had CK. In this study, survival durations between patients with/without HRCAs were similar, while the CK group had significantly poorer PFS/OS than the no-CK group (median PFS: 9 vs. 24 months and median OS: 29 vs. 97 months, respectively), and a poor prognostic impact of CK was maintained in patients with HRCAs. In multivariate analysis, CK was correlated with poor PFS/OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.39, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.22-4.66 and HR: 2.66, 95% CI: 1.10-6.45, respectively). Bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) ≥60% (odds ratio [OR] = 6.40, 95% CI: 1.50-27.2) and Revised International Staging System III (OR = 7.53, 95% CI: 2.09-27.1) were associated with CK. Our study suggests that CK may contribute to the poor prognosis of MM. Aggressive disease status including high BMPC proliferation could be relevant to CK.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis to develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly administered to cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy, especially when incidence rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) surpasses 20%. While primary prophylaxis with G-CSF has been proven effective in preventing FN in patients with cancer, there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy in specifically, lung cancer. Our systematic review focused on the efficacy of G-CSF primary prophylaxis in lung cancer. METHODS: We extracted studies on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) using the PubMed, Ichushi Web, and Cochrane Library databases. Two reviewers assessed the extracted studies for each type of lung cancer and conducted quantitative and meta-analyses of preplanned outcomes, including overall survival, FN incidence, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and musculoskeletal pain. RESULTS: A limited number of studies were extracted: two on NSCLC and six on SCLC. A meta-analysis was not conducted owing to insufficient data on NSCLC. Two case-control studies explored the efficacy of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF in patients with NSCLC (on docetaxel and ramucirumab therapy) and indicated a lower FN frequency with G-CSF. For SCLC, meta-analysis of five studies showed no significant reduction in FN incidence, with an odds ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.03-5.56, P = 0.48). Outcomes other than FN incidence could not be evaluated due to low data availability. CONCLUSION: Limited data are available on G-CSF prophylaxis in lung cancer. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF may be weakly recommended in Japanese patients with NSCLC undergoing docetaxel and ramucirumab combination therapy.

Secondary central nervous system involvement in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab combined CHOP therapy - a supplementary analysis of JCOG0601.

Secondary central nervous system involvement (sCNSi) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is fatal. However, its features in patients with sCNSi who are categorized as lower risk by international prognostic index (IPI) or CNS-IPI are not yet fully understood. In the present analysis, we evaluated DLBCL patients who developed sCNSi at their first progression and who participated in JCOG0601, most of whom were lower risk by IPI. Of 409 patients, 21 (5.1%) developed sCNSi during a median follow-up of 4.9 years. Five-year cumulative incidence of sCNSi were 5.1%; and 4.0%, 5.3%, and 11.5% at low, intermediate, and high risk of CNS-IPI, respectively. The most common locations of extranodal lesions at the time of registration in patients with sCNSi were the stomach (n = 4), paranasal cavity (n = 3), and bone marrow (n = 2). In univariable analysis, paranasal cavity lesion was a high-risk factor for sCNSi (subdistribution hazard ratio, 4.34 [95% confidence interval 1.28-14.73]). Median overall survival after sCNSi was 1.3 years, with a 2-year overall survival rate of 39.3%. The incidence of sCNSi in DLBCL patients at lower risk of CNS-IPI was low, as previously reported, but paranasal cavity lesion might indicate high risk for organ involvement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: JCOG0601 was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000000929, date of registration; December 04, 2007) and the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031180139, date of registration; February 20, 2019).

Current development of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a commercially available treatment option for relapsed or refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with two or more lines of prior therapies, and recently for high-risk r/r DLBCL with one prior line of therapy. The successful development of CAR T-cell therapy for multiple relapsed DLBCL has led to a boom in subsequent trials that investigated its utility in patients with other r/r B-cell lymphoma subtypes. However, CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep process that includes leukapheresis and manipulation which take several weeks. Therefore, patients with rapidly progressing or bulky disease may not be able to complete the therapeutic regimen involving CAR T-cell products. This raises the question of the generalizability of the results of pivotal studies to the entire population. In this review, we summarize the development of CAR-T cell therapy for B-cell lymphoma and discuss strategies to further improve the clinical outcomes of this treatment.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in Japan: post-marketing surveillance.

Efficacy and safety data for ibrutinib in Japanese patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) were limited at the time of its approval in Japan. All-case post-marketing surveillance was conducted in Japanese R/R MCL patients who began ibrutinib treatment between December 2016 and December 2017, and patients were followed until 30 June 2020. In the effectiveness analysis set (n = 202), the overall response rate was 59.9%, 52-week progression-free survival was 47.5%, and overall survival was 69.3%. Safety was assessed in 248 patients (median age 74.0 years). When ibrutinib treatment was started, patients had received a median of three prior lines of therapy. The overall incidence of adverse events (AE) was 74.6%, and AE frequency and severity grade distribution were similar between patients with 1 versus more than 1 prior line of therapy. The most common AE was platelet count decreased (all grades; 10.4%), similarly to previous observations in patients with R/R chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Five patients (2.0%) developed atrial fibrillation. The effectiveness and safety of ibrutinib were consistent with its known profile at approval in Japan. These results suggest that ibrutinib is effective and safe in Japanese R/R MCL patients in routine clinical practice.