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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

Impacts of probiotics on the efficacies of immune checkpoint inhibitors with or without chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

The relationships between the therapeutic effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and the intestinal flora have attracted increasing attention. However, the effects of oral probiotics on the efficacies of ICIs used to treat non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remain unclear. We investigated the effects of probiotics on the efficacies of ICIs in patients treated with and without chemotherapy. We investigated patients with advanced NSCLC on ICI monotherapy or combination ICI and chemotherapy using the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Immunotherapy Database (OLCSG-ID) and the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Immunochemotherapy Database (OLCSG-ICD). In total, 927 patients (482 on ICI monotherapy, 445 on an ICI + chemotherapy) were enrolled. Most were male, of good performance status, smokers, and without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutations. Probiotics were administered to 19% of patients on ICI monotherapies and 17% of those on ICIs + chemotherapy. Of the former patients, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly better in the probiotics group (PFS 7.9 vs. 2.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, p < .001; OS not attained vs. 13.1 months, HR 0.45, p < .001). Among patients receiving ICI and chemotherapy, there were no significant differences in PFS between those on probiotics and not but OS was significantly better in the probiotics group (PFS 8.8 vs. 8.6 months, HR 0.89, p = .43; OS not attained vs. 22.6 months, HR 0.61, p = .03). Patients on probiotics experienced better outcomes following ICI treatment.

Clinical Features of Patients With Hematological Malignancies Treated at the Palliative Care Unit.

Background: In Japan, the number of patients with aggressive hematological malignancies (PHMs) admitted at the palliative care unit (PCU) in their end-of-life (EOL) stage was fewer than that of patients with solid tumors due to several reasons. The assessment of patient characteristics and the methods of survival prediction among PHMs in the EOL stage are warranted. Objectives: This study aimed to identify the current medical status and the method of survival prediction among PHMs treated at the PCU. Setting/Subjects/Measurements: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 25 PHMs treated at our PCU between January 2017 and December 2020. The association between survival time and the palliative prognostic score (PAP) and palliative prognostic index (PPI) was analyzed. Results: The average age of the PHMs was higher than that of patients with lung cancer as a control. The median survival time of the PHMs was shorter than the control group. Most PHMs could not receive standard chemotherapy, and the most common cause of death was disease-related organ failure. Significant associations were observed between the survival time and each PAP/PPI value in patients with malignant lymphoma, but not in those with leukemia. Conclusion: The PHMs in the PCU had a lower median survival time than the control group. These results were induced by the result of patient selection to avoid treatment-related severe toxicity. The survival prediction using the PAP and PPI was less accurate in patients with leukemia.

A randomized phase II study of afatinib alone or combined with bevacizumab for treating chemo-naïve patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Adding bevacizumab to first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS), but limited data are available for second-generation EGFR-TKIs. AfaBev-CS is a randomized, phase II trial comparing afatinib plus bevacizumab and afatinib alone as first-line treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations (Del19 or L858R) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either afatinib (30 mg) plus bevacizumab (AfaBev group) or afatinib (40 mg) monotherapy (Afa group). The primary endpoint was PFS. The power was >50% under the assumptions of a median PFS of 12 months for the Afa group and hazard ratio (HR) of 0.6 for the AfaBev group. RESULTS: Between August 2017 and September 2019, 100 patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference in PFS between the groups. The median PFS was 16.3 and 16.1 months for the AfaBev and Afa groups, respectively, with an HR of 0.865 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.539 to 1.388; p = 0.55). In terms of overall survival, there was no significant difference between the groups (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.83; p = 0.67). The overall response rate was 82.6% and 76.6% in the AfaBev and Afa groups, respectively (p = 0.61). Grade ≥ 3 diarrhea, hypertension, acneiform rash, paronychia, and stomatitis were frequently observed in the AfaBev group. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show efficacy of AfaBev over Afa for improving PFS in untreated patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited information on anticancer therapy for super-elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer is available. Immune checkpoint inhibitors offer long-term survival to elderly patients aged ≥65 years with non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in more elderly patients are not well understood. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients aged ≥85 years with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer at nine centers using the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group-Immunotherapy Database. RESULTS: Among 531 patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors, 16 were aged ≥85 years (median, 86.5 years; range, 85-93 years). Many had high programmed death-ligand 1 expression and received pembrolizumab as first-line therapy. The objective response rate, median progression-free survival, and median survival time were 25% (95% confidence interval: 1-49), 2.8 months (95% confidence interval: 1.7-4.5), and not reached (95% confidence interval: 4.7-not reached), respectively. Moreover, the 4-year overall survival rate was 60.8% (95% confidence interval: 29.3-81.7), and a long-lasting effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors was observed even in patients aged ≥85 years. The incidence of immune-related and grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events was 32% and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The effect and toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients aged ≥85 years were acceptable. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be a treatment option for patients aged ≥85 years.

The complexity of EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R mutant cells as assessed by proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics.

Most lung adenocarcinoma-associated EGFR tyrosine kinase mutations are either an exon 19 deletion (19Del) or L858R point mutation in exon 21. Although patients whose tumors contain either of these mutations exhibit increased sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors, progression-free and overall survival appear to be longer in patients with 19Del than in those with L858R. In mutant-transfected Ba/F3 cells, 19Del and L858R were compared by multi-omics analyses including proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics. Proteome analysis identified increased plastin-2, TKT, PDIA5, and ENO1 expression in L858R cells, and increased EEF1G expression in 19Del cells. RNA sequencing showed significant differences between 19Del and L858R cells in 112 genes. Metabolome analysis showed that amino acids, adenylate, guanylate, NADPH, lactic acid, pyruvic acid glucose 6-phosphate, and ribose 5-phosphate were significantly different between the two mutant cells. Because GSH was increased with L858R, we combined osimertinib with the GSH inhibitor buthionine sulfoximine in L858R cells and observed synergistic effects. The complexity of EGFR 19Del and L858R mutant cells was demonstrated by proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics analyses. Therapeutic strategies for lung cancer with different EGFR mutations could be considered because of their different metabolic phenotypes.

Effect of a Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor in Combination with (-)-Epigallocatechin Gallate or Polyphenon E on Cisplatin-Induced Lung Tumorigenesis in A/J Mice.

We investigated the effects of celecoxib combined with (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) or polyphenon E in a cisplatin-induced lung tumorigenesis model. Four-week-old female A/J mice were divided into seven groups: (i) Control, (ii) 150 mg/kg celecoxib (150Cel), (iii) 1,500 mg/kg celecoxib (1500Cel), (iv) EGCG+150 mg/kg celecoxib (EGCG+150Cel), (v) EGCG+1,500 mg/kg celecoxib (EGCG+1500Cel), (vi) polyphenon E+150 mg/kg celecoxib (PolyE+150Cel), and (vii) polyphenon E+1,500 mg/kg celecoxib (PolyE+1500Cel). All mice were administered cisplatin (1.62 mg/kg of body weight, i.p.) 1×/week for 10 weeks and sacrificed at week 30; the numbers of tumors on the lung surface were then determined. The tumor incidence and multiplicity (no. of tumors/mouse, mean±SD) were respectively 95% and 2.15±1.50 in Control, 95% and 2.10±1.29 in 150Cel, 86% and 1.67±1.20 in 1500Cel, 71% and 1.38±1.24 in EGCG+150Cel, 67% and 1.29±1.38 in EGCG+1500Cel, 80% and 1.95±1.36 in PolyE+150Cel, and 65% and 1.05±0.10 in PolyE+1500Cel. The combination of high-dose celecoxib with EGCG or polyphenon E significantly reduced multiplicity in cisplatin-induced lung tumors.

More than one-third of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients do not receive immunochemotherapy due to intolerance.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and chemotherapy (ICI + chemotherapy) has become the standard first line treatment for driver oncogene-negative advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it may be more toxic compared to monotherapy, which limits its use. Moreover, the feasibility of the combination therapy in clinical practice remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study to determine the implementation rate of ICI + chemotherapy in clinical practice. We retrospectively reviewed clinical data from advanced NSCLC patients who received systemic therapy at 13 institutions between December 2018 and December 2020. RESULTS: After excluding 154 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene alterations, a total of 919 NSCLC patients were included. Among them, 442 were treated with ICI + chemotherapy (48%), whereas 477 were treated with other therapies (52%). Among these 477 patients, 340 did not receive ICI + chemotherapy because of intolerance (71%); thus, more than one-third of the advanced NSCLC patients do not benefit from the combination therapy due to intolerance. Among the 659 NSCLC patients for whom PD-L1 was < 50% or unknown, only 342 received the ICI + chemotherapy combination (52%) even though it is considered preferable to either therapy alone; the remaining 318 patients were treated with other therapies (48%). Among the 318 patients who did not receive ICI + chemotherapy, 274 were intolerant to it (86%). CONCLUSION: Our results revealed that a substantial proportion of advanced NSCLC patients did not benefit from ICI + chemotherapy due to intolerance. As treatments for NSCLC are moving toward combinations for greater efficacy, their feasibility in clinical practice must be taken into consideration.