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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

[Usefulness of web-based application for health surveys before and after peripheral blood stem cell harvest from healthy donors].

Health surveys to assess adverse events after peripheral blood stem cell harvest (PBSCH) have conventionally been conducted by phone, but phone calls are suboptimal for conducting frequent surveys. We developed a web-based application (donor app) that enables donors to inform healthcare professionals (HCPs) of their health status as an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO). In this prospective observational study, we compared the usefulness of this donor app to phone calls for conducting health surveys. App users reported ePRO daily, and patients called by HCPs reported their health status at least once a week when called. The observation period was from the first administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to the first follow-up visit after PBSCH, excluding the hospitalization period. Each group consisted of eight donors with a median age of 32 years (range: 19-58). Nine (56.3%) were female. There were eight related donors in the phone call group and four in the donor app group. During the observation period, HCPs obtained health status reports more frequently from app users than from phone call recipients (mean proportion of days with reports made during the observation period, 27.0% vs 53.5%; p<0.05). Average time spent by the HCPs for one follow-up and total follow-ups were both significantly shorter when the donor app was used. There were no differences in donor burden or satisfaction with donation. Our study suggests that use of a donor app could provide more detailed health survey data without increasing the burden on donors and HCPs.

Exploring the role of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in identifying idiopathic multicentric Castleman's disease types: Implications for the mTOR signaling pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the molecular differences between iMCD-thrombocytopenia, anasarca, fevers, reticulin myelofibrosis, organomegaly (TAFRO), and iMCD-not otherwise specified (NOS). METHODS: CD4-positive T cells were isolated from two iMCD-TAFRO and two iMCD-NOS patients for RNA sequencing comparison. Serum proteins of two iMCD-TAFRO and four iMCD-NOS patients were comprehensively analyzed to identify pathogenesis-associated proteins. IGFBP-1 protein, extracted from serum analysis, was compared to healthy controls, iMCD, systemic lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis patients. RESULTS: RNA sequencing of CD4-positive T cells revealed enhanced mTOR-related signaling in iMCD-TAFRO compared to iMCD-NOS. Comprehensive serum analysis found IGFBP-1 linked to iMCD pathogenesis, significantly higher in iMCD-TAFRO. This protein may be elevated in patients with iMCD caused by an enhanced mTOR pathway. CONCLUSION: The mTOR pathway is suggested to be activated in iMCD-TAFRO compared to iMCD-NOS, which may elevate the protein IGFBP-1. This protein may be a biomarker to distinguish iMCD-TAFRO from iMCD-NOS.

Tandem autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with myeloma: A multicenter retrospective analysis.

Tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been reconsidered for high-risk patients with myeloma, and the eligibility criteria for up-front ASCT have been updated to include more elderly patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tandem ASCT in elderly patients with myeloma compared to tandem ASCT in young patients and single ASCT in elderly patients. A retrospective study using the Transplant Registry Unified Management Program database of the Japanese Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, which included 64 elderly and 613 young patients who received tandem ASCT, and 891 elderly patients who received single ASCT, was conducted. The median overall survival (OS) over 38.5 months in the elderly and young patients who received tandem ASCT, and elderly patients who received single ASCT was 78.9, 92.5, and 77.1 months, respectively; no significant difference in the median OS was observed. The cumulative incidence of transplantation-related mortality was similar in the elderly and young patients receiving tandem ASCT. High-risk cytogenetic abnormality was not identified as a poor prognostic factor for OS in elderly patients who received tandem ASCT but in those who received single ASCT. Thus, tandem ASCT was effective and tolerable in elderly patients with myeloma.

Impact of MRD on clinical outcomes of unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with Ph+ ALL: A retrospective nationwide study.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) status before transplantation has been shown to be a strong prognostic factor in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL). However, the outcomes of unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplantation based on the MRD status have not been fully investigated. In this retrospective study, we compared the outcomes of 715 consecutive adults with Ph+ ALL in complete remission who underwent unrelated cord blood transplantation (UCBT) (single-unit UCBT, n = 232 [4/6, 5/6, and 6/6 HLA match]), HLA-matched unrelated bone marrow transplantation (UBMT; n = 292 [8/8 HLA match]), or HLA-mismatched UBMT (n = 191 [7/8 HLA match]). In the MRD+ cohort, adjusted 3-year leukemia-free survival rates were 59.8%, 38.3%, and 55.5% after UCBT, HLA-matched UBMT, and HLA-mismatched UBMT, respectively. In the MRD- cohort, the corresponding rates were 65.3%, 70.4%, and 69.7%, respectively. The MRD+ HLA-matched UBMT group had a significantly higher risk of relapse than the MRD+ HLA-mismatched UBMT group (hazard ratio [HR] in the MRD+ HLA-mismatched UBMT group, 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.74) and the MRD+ UCBT group (HR in the MRD+ UCBT group, 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.83). Furthermore, HLA-matched UBMT had a significant effect of MRD on death (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.19-2.94), relapse or death (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.50-3.34), and relapse (HR 3.12; 95% CI 1.75-5.57), while UCBT and HLA-mismatched UBMT did not. In conclusion, our data indicate Ph+ ALL patients with positive MRD may benefit from undergoing UCBT or HLA-mismatched UBMT instead of HLA-matched UBMT to reduce leukemic relapse.

Clinical significance of late CMV disease in adult patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant.

INTRODUCTION: Late cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, which was defined as CMV disease occurring >100 days post-transplant, remains an important complication among allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients, even now that the prophylactic strategy using ganciclovir preemptive therapy has been established. Due to the recent expansion of donor sources and conditioning regimens, it is therefore appropriate to reevaluate the incidence, risk factors, and clinical impacts of late CMV disease. METHODS: This study included the 1295 adult patients, who underwent transplant for the first time from 2008 to 2015, without underlying disease relapse or CMV disease within 100 days post-transplant. There were no restrictions on underlying diseases or transplant procedures. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 48.4 months, 21 patients developed late CMV disease and the 5-year cumulative incidence of late CMV disease was 1.6%. By multivariate analysis, haploidentical related donor, adult T-cell leukemia lymphoma, and preemptive therapy before 100 days post-transplant were extracted as independent risk factors. Late CMV disease negatively affected transplant outcomes, and was identified as an independent risk factor for the non-relapse mortality rate (hazard ratio 3.83, p < 0.001) and overall survival rate (hazard ratio 4.01, p < 0.001). Although 17 of 21 patients with late CMV disease died, the main causes of death were not related to CMV, except in three patients with CMV pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of late CMV disease is low in transplant recipients, this complication negatively affects clinical courses. Therefore, transplant recipients with these risk factors should be more carefully managed.

[Onco-cardiology Guideline-Trends in Japan].

Advances in treatment have led to improve survival of patients with cancer, however, cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity(CTR-CVT)from cancer treatment remain a leading cause of treatment-associated morbidity and mortality across cancer survivors. Onco-cardiology has become a cardiology subspecialty oriented to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow up of CTR-CVT in cancer patients throughout all stages of cancer therapy and in the survivorship period. The field is rapidly growing and the Japanese Onco-Cardiology Society(JOCS)was founded in October 2017. Although only a few guidelines in the field of Onco-cardiology have been published, the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology and JOCS organized practical guidelines committee for management of Onco-cardiology in 2019 in recognition of the increasing need for guidelines. The committee began the making of recommendations according to Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guidelines Development. The guideline-creation committee proposed 16 clinical questions in consideration of PICO format, which described the population, intervention, control, and outcomes. A literature search was performed using the PubMed (MEDLINE), additionally we did a hand searched. After systematic review analysis, we should shift 11 questions to either background questions or future research questions because of little evidence. The guideline of Onco-cardiology was published on March 2023. In this review, I describe outlines of 5 clinical questions.

The new generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor improves the survival of chronic myeloid leukemia patients after allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment has dramatically improved the prognosis of CML patients and reduced the number of patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). However, the impact of the newest-generation TKIs on the overall survival (OS) after allo-SCT has not been well described. To investigate the beneficial effects of TKIs on the prognosis after allo-SCT, we conducted a retrospective observational study using the Transplant Registry Unified Management Program database in Japan. We analyzed 1188 patients (male/female: 738/450; median age: 44 years; range: 16-75) who underwent their first allo-SCT between January 2001 and December 2018. We divided the patients into two groups according to the TKI treatment used before allo-SCT: group 1 was treated with the first generation TKI imatinib; group 2 was treated with the second generation TKIs nilotinib, dasatinib, or bosutinib and/or the third generation TKI ponatinib. We compared the post allo-SCT OS between the two groups. The 3-year OS rates (95%CI) of groups 1 and 2 were 59.3% (54.8%-63.5%) and 65.8% (61.6%-69.6%), respectively (p = 0.017). Multivariate analysis confirmed that group 2 had superior OS after allo-SCT compared to group 1 (p = 0.002). Other factors associated with superior prognosis were age ≤65, performance status (PS) 0/1, a 6/6 HLA-matched donor and chronic-phase (CP) disease status at allo-SCT. A subgroup analysis showed poor prognoses for patients who could not obtain a molecular response before allo-SCT and patients with positive T315I mutation in the BCR/ABL gene. In group 2, early allo-SCT was correlated with superior OS in patients with a blast-crisis disease status at allo-SCT (p = 0.001). The cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality rate significantly decreased in group 2 (p = 0.0005). The post allo-SCT OS was improved both by pre- and post-management of allo-SCT and by the introduction of newer TKIs.

Donor lymphocyte infusion after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia.

Although haploidentical donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is a valid treatment option for relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the incidence and risk factors for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and the efficacy of haploidentical DLI have not been fully evaluated. We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes after haploidentical DLI for 84 patients with AML using a nationwide database and additional questionnaires. The median number of DLI cycles and infused CD3+ cell dose was 1 and 1.0 × 106/kg, respectively. The infused CD3+ cell count of 5.0 × 105/kg or higher was associated with acute GVHD (grade II-IV, 32.1% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.03; grade III-IV, 21.4% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.10). Patients who developed grade III-IV acute GVHD more frequently succumbed to treatment-related mortality (46.7% vs. 15.8% at 1 year, p = 0.002), although the relapse-related mortality was significantly low (40.0% vs. 72.2% at 1 year, p = 0.025). The overall response to DLI was significantly higher in the preemptive DLI group (47.4%) than in the therapeutic group (13.9%, p = 0.002). In the multivariate analysis, preemptive DLI was the predictive factor for overall response (odds ratio, 5.58; p = 0.003). Our results indicated the substantial risk of acute GVHD after haploidentical DLI with CD3+ cell count of 5.0×105/kg or higher and the favorable outcomes after preemptive DLI.