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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Survival outcomes including salvage therapy of adult head and neck para-meningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: a multicenter retrospective study from Japan.

BACKGROUND: Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft tissue sarcoma in children, but rare in adults. Para-meningeal rhabdomyosarcoma in head and neck (PM-HNRMS) is less applicable for surgery due to the anatomic reason. PM-HNRMS has a poor prognosis in children. However, its clinical outcomes remain unclear in adults due to the rarity. Further, there is almost no detailed data about salvage therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the adult patients with PM-HNRMS treated at institutions belonging to the Kyushu Medical Oncology Group from 2009 to 2022. We evaluated the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of the patients who received a first-line therapy. We also reviewed the clinical outcomes of patients who progressed against a first-line therapy and received salvage therapy. RESULTS: Total 11 patients of PM-HNRMS received a first-line therapy. The characteristics were as follows: median age: 38 years (range 25 - 63 years), histology (alveolar/spindle): 10/1, and risk group (intermediate/high): 7/4. As a first-line therapy, VAC and ARST0431-based regimen was performed in 10 and 1 patients, respectively. During a first-line therapy, definitive radiation for all lesions were performed in seven patients. The median PFS was 14.2 months (95%CI: 6.0 - 25.8 months): 17.1 months (95%CI: 6.0 - not reached (NR)) for patients with stage I-III and 8.5 months (95%CI: 5.2 - 25.8 months) for patients with stage IV. The 1-year and 3-year PFS rates were 54.5% and 11.3% for all patients. Median OS in all patients was 40.8 months (95%CI: 12.1 months-NR): 40.8 months (95%CI: 12.1 - NR) for patients with stage I-III and NR for patients with stage IV. The 5-year OS rate was 48.5% for all patients. Among seven patients who received salvage therapy, three are still alive, two of whom remain disease-free for over 4 years after completion of the last therapy. Those two patients received multi-modal therapy including local therapy for all detected lesions. CONCLUSION: The cure rate of adult PM-HNRMS is low in spite of a first-line therapy in this study. Salvage therapy might prolong the survival in patients who received the multi-modal therapy including local therapy for all detected lesions.

Clinical utility of Todai OncoPanel in the setting of approved comprehensive cancer genomic profiling tests in Japan.

Comprehensive cancer genome profiling (CGP) has been nationally reimbursed in Japan since June 2019. Less than 10% of the patients have been reported to undergo recommended treatment. Todai OncoPanel (TOP) is a dual DNA-RNA panel as well as a paired tumor-normal matched test. Two hundred patients underwent TOP as part of Advanced Medical Care B with approval from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare between September 2018 and December 2019. Tests were carried out in patients with cancers without standard treatment or when patients had already undergone standard treatment. Data from DNA and RNA panels were analyzed in 198 and 191 patients, respectively. The percentage of patients who were given therapeutic or diagnostic recommendations was 61% (120/198). One hundred and four samples (53%) harbored gene alterations that were detected with the DNA panel and had potential treatment implications, and 14 samples (7%) had a high tumor mutational burden. Twenty-two samples (11.1%) harbored 30 fusion transcripts or MET exon 14 skipping that were detected by the RNA panel. Of those 30 transcripts, 6 had treatment implications and 4 had diagnostic implications. Thirteen patients (7%) were found to have pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and genetic counseling was recommended. Overall, 12 patients (6%) received recommended treatment. In summary, patients benefited from both TOP DNA and RNA panels while following the same indication as the approved CGP tests. (UMIN000033647).

VEGFR-TKI treatment for radiation-induced brain injury after gamma knife radiosurgery for brain metastases from renal cell carcinomas.

OBJECTIVE: Antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors play an essential role in systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Given the anti-edematous effect of bevacizumab, an antiangiogenic antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors should exert therapeutic effects on radiation-induced brain injury after stereotactic radiosurgery. This preliminary study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor against radiation-induced brain injury. METHODS: Magnetic resonance images for six patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors who were diagnosed with radiation-induced brain injury following gamma knife radiosurgery were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: The median brain edema volume and tumour mass volume in the pre-tyrosine kinase inhibitor period were 57.6 mL (range: 39.4-188.2) and 3.2 mL (range: 1.0-4.6), respectively. Axitinib, pazopanib (followed by cabozantinib) and sunitinib were administered in four, one and one cases, respectively. The median brain edema volume and tumour mass volume in the post-tyrosine kinase inhibitor period were 4.8 mL (range: 1.5-27.8) and 1.6 mL (range: 0.4-3.6), respectively. The median rates of reduction in brain edema volume and tumour mass volume were 90.8% (range: 51.9-97.6%) and 57.2% (range: 20.0-68.6%), respectively. The post-tyrosine kinase inhibitor values for brain edema volume (P = 0.027) and tumour mass volume (P = 0.008) were significantly lower than the pre-tyrosine kinase inhibitor values. Changes in volume were correlated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor use. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate the therapeutic effects of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors on radiation-induced brain injury in patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma treated via gamma knife radiosurgery.

Asymptomatic Myocarditis with Mild Cardiac Marker Elevation Following Nivolumab-Induced Myositis.

Although myocarditis following immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is rarely reported, it is considered clinically important because of its high mortality rate. Although various tests may be used for early diagnosis, abnormalities suggestive of myocarditis may not be detected. We report a case of ICI-induced myositis and concurrent asymptomatic myocarditis with mild cardiac marker elevation following nivolumab therapy in a 79-year-old man with metastatic gastric cancer. In this case, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was useful for diagnosis. Treatment with oral prednisolone rapidly improved the patient's symptoms and creatine kinase levels. Follow-up examination revealed no flare-up of myositis and exacerbation of myocarditis. Since ICI-induced myositis is often complicated by myocarditis, this case report highlights the importance of detecting concurrent myocarditis in patients with ICI-induced myositis through intensive cardiac assessments to improve clinical outcomes.

Immune-related dermatitis during combined treatment with pembrolizumab and axitinib in a patient with metastatic renal cell\x92carcinoma with stasis dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has recently been approved as a first-line treatment for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, immune-related adverse events are not well known. CASE PRESENTATION: A 65-year-old male was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma with metastases to the brain and lungs. The patient had a medical history of stasis dermatitis. During the combined treatment of pembrolizumab and axitinib, blisters appeared on the lower extremities. Skin biopsy revealed septal panniculitis, pustules, and perivascular lymphocytic and neutrophilic infiltration of the skin, and the patient was diagnosed with immune-related dermatitis. The dermatitis improved with oral prednisolone treatment. CONCLUSION: A case of immune-related dermatitis during combinatorial treatment with pembrolizumab and axitinib for renal cell carcinoma has been reported. Preexisting stasis dermatitis may have affected the onset and deterioration of immune-related dermatitis.

Reliability and validity of D-dimer monitoring for pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with unresectable, advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer treated with bevacizumab.

Pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) is one of the leading causes of death among cancer outpatients. The aim of the present study was to investigate the reliability and validity of D-dimer monitoring for PTE in patients with unresectable, advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer treated with bevacizumab. A total of 25 patients with advanced colorectal cancer who received bevacizumab combination chemotherapy as primary treatment were retrospectively reviewed. The selection criteria included that D-dimer tests were performed repetitively, and that chest and abdominal contrast-enhanced CT scans were completed. The D-dimer levels and the presence or absence of PTE on CT images were retrospectively examined. Four cases (16%) were detected as having asymptomatic PTE. The D-dimer values at the onset of PTE were 14.2, 4.6, 1.1 and 0.9 µg/ml. The negative predictive value was 90.5% when 3.0 µg/ml was set as the D-dimer level cutoff value. The incidence of PTE, including asymptomatic PTE, in the present study was higher compared with that reported in previous studies on various types of cancer, of various stages and treated with different chemotherapy regimens. In patients with bevacizumab-treated unresectable, advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer, the D-dimer test was found to be less useful for exclusion diagnosis; however, along with chest CT, it may be useful in the detection and diagnosis of PTE. However, the determination of the optimal reference values and appropriate measurement timing of D-dimer testing requires further study.

Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of the Breast: The Latest WHO Classification and Review of the Literature.

Breast tumors with neuroendocrine (NE) differentiation comprise an uncommon and heterogeneous group of tumors, including invasive breast cancer of no special type (IBC-NST) with NE features, neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). The most recent World Health Organization (WHO) classification in 2019 defined neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) of the breast (Br-NENs) as tumors in which >90% of cells show histological evidence of NE differentiation, including NETs (low-grade tumors) and NEC (high-grade). Due to the low prevalence of these tumors and successive changes in their diagnostic criteria over the years, only limited evidence of these tumors exists, derived mainly from case reports and retrospective case series. Breast tumors with NE differentiation are usually treated like the more commonly occurring IBC-NSTs. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) of breast tumors with NE differentiation usually shows a hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor type 2 (HER2)-negative profile, so that hormonal therapy with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitors or other targeted agents would be reasonable treatment options. Herein, we present a review of the literature on breast tumors with NE differentiation as defined in the latest WHO 2019 classification, and discuss the clinical management of these tumors.

Randomized, Phase II Study of Trastuzumab Beyond Progression in Patients With HER2-Positive Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: WJOG7112G (T-ACT Study).

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the continuous use of trastuzumab beyond progression (TBP) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2-positive advanced G/GEJ cancer refractory to first-line chemotherapy with trastuzumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine and platinum were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to the paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks) or paclitaxel with trastuzumab (PT; initially 8 mg/kg followed by 6 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) arms. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety. Biomarkers such as HER2 expression status in tumor tissue after first-line treatment, HER2 amplification evaluated in serum cell-free DNA, and soluble HER2 levels were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 91 patients were allocated to the paclitaxel (n = 46) and PT (n = 45) arms. The median PFS in the paclitaxel and PT arms was 3.2 and 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 80% CI, 0.67 to 1.22; P = .33), and the median OS in both arms was 10 months (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.0; P = .20). The overall response rates in the paclitaxel and PT arms were 32% and 33%, respectively (P = 1.00), and safety was comparable between the 2 arms. On exploratory analyses, HER2 positivity of tumor tissues was lost after first-line chemotherapy in 11 (69%) of 16 patients whose tumor tissues were available, and circulating HER2 DNA amplification was detected in 41 (60%) of 68 patients. However, no biomarkers associated with efficacy of TBP were found. CONCLUSION: The TBP strategy failed to improve PFS in patients with HER2-positive advanced G/GEJ cancer, and no beneficial biomarkers were found.