Multicenter randomized phase III study of high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation versus observation for patients with newly diagnosed peripheral T-cell lymphoma who achieved complete metabolic response after induction therapy (JCOG2210, TRANSFER study).

Patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma demonstrated a poor prognosis after obtaining a complete response with induction treatment compared to those with B-cell lymphoma. Once it relapsed, curative treatment is frequently limited to invasive treatments with significant treatment-related mortality, including allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The limitations of these treatment choices indicate the necessity for developing optimal consolidation therapies to prevent relapse. This multicenter randomized phase III trial aims to confirm the superiority of the high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation over observation alone in terms of progression-free survival for patients with newly diagnosed peripheral T-cell lymphoma who achieved complete metabolic response after induction therapy. A total of 140 patients from 52 hospitals will be enrolled in Japan over 5.5 years. This trial is registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials as jRCTs031240169 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs031240169).

[Current standard treatments and future outlook for follicular lymphoma].

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common subtype of indolent lymphoma. Survival outcomes for FL have improved since the introduction of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab, and median overall survival has reached 15-20 years. However, FL is an incurable disease that subsequently progresses or relapses, and progression-free and overall survival tend to shorten with repeated relapses. For patients with limited-stage disease, radiation therapy is generally the treatment of choice and results in a median survival of approximately nearly 20 years. For advanced-stage patients with low tumor burden, watchful waiting continues to be the appropriate strategy at present. It remains unclear whether rituximab monotherapy might change this watchful waiting approach and result in a benefit from early intervention in patients with low tumor burden. For advanced-stage patients with high tumor burden, chemoimmunotherapy including rituximab or obinutuzumab followed by maintenance therapy is the standard treatment. For relapsed or refractory patients, treatment options such as chemoimmunotherapy, lenalidomide-rituximab, tazemetostat, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, and CD3/CD20 bispecific antibodies are available or in development. This review presents current standard treatments, recent advances, and future perspectives on the management of FL.

Impact of M-protein detection on the response evaluations of patients undergoing treatment with the IgG-κ monoclonal antibodies daratumumab or isatuximab, and discrepancies between immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) systems and reagents.

BACKGROUND: Immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) is the standard method for confirming the presence of a monoclonal protein (M-protein) at multiple myeloma (MM) diagnosis. IFE is also essential at assessment of complete response (CR) and stringent CR during treatment. As the CR assessment is influenced by daratumumab and isatuximab, HYDRASHIFT assays were developed. METHODS: Samples from patients under treatment that included daratumumab or isatuximab were tested and monitored by IFE on the HYDRASYS system using HYDRASHIFT assays (HYDRASYS/HYDRASHIFT) and by IFE on the Epalyzer2 system (Epalyzer). RESULTS: The IFE using HYDRASYS/HYDRASHIFT avoided a false positive caused by drug-related IgG-κ and contributed to accurate assessment of CR. Furthermore, HYDRASYS/HYDRASHIFT detected small M-proteins at early relapse and detected free light chains (FLCs) in patients with renal impairment exhibiting high serum FLCs despite being often missed on Epalyzer. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and specificity of M-protein detection vary greatly depending on the IFE system and reagents used.

Interim PET-guided ABVD or ABVD/escalated BEACOPP for newly diagnosed advanced-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma (JCOG1305).

This single-arm confirmatory study (JCOG1305) aimed to evaluate the utility of interim positron emission tomography (iPET)-guided therapy for newly diagnosed advanced-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Patients aged 16-60 years with cHL received two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) and then underwent an iPET scan (PET2), which was centrally reviewed using a five-point Deauville scale. PET2-negative patients continued an additional four cycles of ABVD, whereas PET2-positive patients switched to six cycles of escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP). The co-primary endpoints were 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) among all eligible and PET2-positive patients. Ninety-three patients were enrolled between January 2016 and December 2019. One patient was ineligible because of a diagnostic error. The median age of the 92 eligible patients was 35 (interquartile range, 28-48) years. Forty (43%) patients had stage III disease, and 43 (47%) had stage IV disease. The remaining nine (10%) patients had stage IIB disease with risk factors. Nineteen PET2-positive (21%) patients received eBEACOPP, 18 completed six cycles of eBEACOPP, 73 PET2-negative (79%) patients continued ABVD, and 70 completed an additional four cycles of ABVD. With a median follow-up period of 41.1 months, the 2-year PFS of 92 eligible patients and 19 PET2-positive patients were 84.8% (80% confidence interval [CI], 79.2-88.9) and 84.2% (80% CI, 69.7-92.1), respectively. Both primary endpoints were met at the prespecified threshold. This study demonstrates that iPET-guided therapy is a useful treatment option for younger patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage cHL. Registration number: jRCTs031180218.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis 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).

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.

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

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