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.

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 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.

Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of ureteric injuries, clinical value of prophylactic ureteric stenting and impact of intra- or postoperative detection of ureteric injuries in patients treated with gynaecological or colorectal surgery. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before September 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they evaluated the differences in the rate of ureteric injuries between laparoscopic and open surgery, prophylactic ureteric stenting or not, and those of final treatment success between intra- and postoperative detection in patients who underwent gynaecological or colorectal surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 46 studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher incidence of ureteric injuries (pooled odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-2.62), but there was no statistically significant difference in colectomy (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03). Prophylactic ureteric stenting was associated with a lower incidence of ureteric injuries during gynaecological surgery (pooled OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.96). The number needed to perform ureteric stenting to prevent one ureteric injury was 224 in gynaecological surgery. On the other hand, prophylactic ureteric stenting did not reduce the risk of ureteric injuries during colorectal surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury was associated with a lower rate of complication management failure compared to postoperative detection (pooled OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy seems to be associated with a higher rate of ureteric injuries compared to an open approach. Prophylactic ureteric stenting seems to reduce this risk during gynaecological surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury during abdominal/pelvic surgery improves outcomes, suggesting the need for awareness and proactive problem identification. Further well-designed studies assessing the candidates who are more likely to benefit from prophylactic ureteric stenting including cost analysis are needed.

Mid-term outcome of permanent prostate iodine-125 brachytherapy in Japanese patients.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze mid-term oncological outcomes of low-dose rate brachytherapy in Japanese patients. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2010, 604 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with low-dose rate brachytherapy at Jikei University Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Median follow up was 48 months. Of these patients, 260 (43%) were treated with neoadjuvant therapy, 45 (7.5%) with adjuvant hormonal therapy and 75 (12.4%) with supplemental external beam radiation therapy. Biochemical recurrence was defined as the prostate-specific antigen nadir plus 2 ng/mL. RESULTS: Of the 604 patients, 219 (36.2%) were low risk, 361 (59.8%) were intermediate risk and 24 (4.0%) had high-risk disease. The median biologically effective dose was 174.4 Gy2. At 8 years, biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 82.2%, 100% and 95.6%, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 8 years was 89.9%, 79.4% and 52.5%, for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival for the high-risk group was significantly lower than the low- and intermediate-risk groups (P < 0.001). Biochemical recurrence-free survival did not differ significantly by biologically effective dose stratification. In multivariate analysis, younger age (P = 0.045), higher prostate-specific antigen (P = 0.004), higher Gleason score (P = 0.006) and higher clinical T stage (P = 0.008) were significant covariates associated with biochemical recurrence. The addition of hormonal therapy or external beam radiation therapy was associated with significantly better outcomes than low-dose rate brachytherapy monotherapy (P = 0.0021 and 0.010). Just four patients experienced G3 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose rate brachytherapy results in excellent mid-term oncological outcomes and acceptable toxicity in Japanese patients. In our experience, biologically effective dose does not represent a significant predictor for biochemical recurrence.

[Successful treatment of chronic disseminated intravascular coagulation syndrome with continuous subcutaneous infusion of heparin using a mobile infusion pump: report of 2 cases].

We report here two patients with chronic disseminated intravascular coagulation (chronic DIC) secondary to aortic aneurysm, who were successfully treated with continuous subcutaneous infusion of heparin. The patients were 69- and 89-year-old males, who were admitted to our hospital because of thrombocytopenia and marked bleeding tendency. The underlying conditions were aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm, respectively. Coagulation test demonstrated that these patients had DIC, and a diagnosis of chronic DIC secondary to aortic aneurysm was made. Anti-coagulation treatment with oral camostat mesylate and daily subcutaneous infusion of heparin calcium was started. However, the treatment was insufficient to control chronic DIC, and these patients developed recurrent severe subcutaneous hemorrhages. Therefore, we attempted continuous subcutaneous infusion of heparin using a mobile infusion pump. This delivery of heparin markedly improved the coagulopathy, and the hemorrhagic episode disappeared with good compliance in the use of infusion equipment in these patients. Continuous subcutaneous infusion of heparin using a mobile infusion pump is effective and useful for long term treatment of chronic DIC by the outpatient department.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist: A real advantage?

Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that is approved for the treatment of prostate cancer. GnRH antagonists bind directly to and block GnRH receptors, without causing the initial testosterone surge associated with GnRH agonists. A pivotal phase III study indicated that degarelix induced significantly faster reduction of testosterone and prostate-specific antigen level than GnRH agonist does. In addition, its 5-year extension trial suggested that patients could be safely switched from GnRH agonist to degarelix treatment with sustained efficacy, as measured by biochemical markers. Possible benefits of GnRH antagonists over agonists were suggested especially in patients with advanced prostate cancer with metastatic and symptomatic disease. Moreover, the recent reports including pooled data analyses on degarelix suggest improved disease control, quality of life, and lower urinary tract symptoms and decreased risk of cardiovascular diseases when compared with GnRH agonists. However, interpretation of these reports should be conducted cautiously because of the potential biases involved. This article critically reviews the results of the clinical trials and subsequent analyses and evaluates the points and counterpoints of the conclusions.