Assessment of postoperative therapy de-escalation for early-stage, intermediate-risk cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the oncologic outcome of surgically-treated patients with early-stage, intermediate-risk cervical cancer according to postoperative therapy modality. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study queried the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group's nationwide surgical data platform. The study population was 1084 patients with stage IB cervical cancer who underwent primary radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy from 2004 to 2008. Histology type-incorporated intermediate-risk factor patterns were clustered into three groups based on recurrence risk. Oncologic outcomes were assessed per postoperative therapy: external beam radiotherapy alone, concurrent chemo-radiotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and no treatment. RESULTS: Histology-incorporated intermediate-risk groups included: no lympho-vascular space invasion in any histology, or squamous cell carcinoma with lympho-vascular space invasion but no deep stromal invasion (n=559, 51.6%, group 1); squamous cell carcinoma with both lympho-vascular space invasion and deep cervical stromal invasion (n=281, 25.9%; group 2); and non-squamous histology with lympho-vascular space invasion (n=244, 22.5%; group 3). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 93.3%, 89.3%, and 82.5% for group 1,-2, and -3, respectively (p<0.001), with group 3 exhibiting an almost three-fold increased recurrence risk compared with group 1 (adjusted-hazard ratio (aHR) 2.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70-4.32), followed by group 2 (aHR 1.67, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.75). Disease-free survival was similar across the postoperative therapy groups: 5 year rates for external beam radiotherapy alone, concurrent chemo-radiotherapy, chemotherapy alone, and no postoperative treatment, 94.8%, 87.2%, 93.6%, and 94.2% for group 1 (p=0.294); 85.0%, 93.3%, 87.3%, and 90.5% for group 2 (p=0.578); and 85.4%, 83.1%, 80.5%, and 83.3% for group 3 (p=0.876). The aHR for disease-free survival comparing no postoperative treatment to external beam radiotherapy alone was 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.28), 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.79), and 1.21 (95% CI 0.42 to 3.51) for group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively. The observed exposure-outcome associations were similar for cause-specific survival (all, p>0.05). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective investigation in Japan, active surveillance without postoperative therapy following radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy was not associated with oncologic outcome in early-stage, intermediate-risk cervical cancer.

Re-administration of platinum-based chemotherapy for recurrent endometrial cancer: an ancillary analysis of the SGSG-012/GOTIC-004/Intergroup study.

BACKGROUND: We previously demonstrated the applicability of the concept of "platinum sensitivity" in recurrent endometrial cancer. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have been widely incorporated into endometrial cancer treatment, the debate continues regarding treatment options in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer who have previously received platinum-based chemotherapy. In this study, we assessed the duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment using pooled data from the SGSG-012/GOTIC-004/Intergroup study. METHODS: Among the 279 participants in the SGSG-012/GOTIC-004/Intergroup study wherein platinum-based chemotherapy was re-administered for managing recurrent endometrial cancer between January 2005 and December 2009, 130 (47%) responded to chemotherapy. We compared the relationship between platinum-free interval and duration of secondary platinum-based treatment using pooled data. RESULTS: In 40 patients (31%), the duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment exceeded the platinum-free interval. The duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment exceeded 12 months in 51 patients (39%) [platinum-free interval: < 12 months, 14/48 (29%); 12-23 months, 18/43 (42%); 24-35 months, 8/19 (42%); ≥ 36 months, 11/20 (55%)]. In particular, in eight patients (6%), the duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment exceeded 36 months [platinum-free interval: < 12 months, 3/48 (6%); 12-23 months, 0/19 (0%); 24-35 months, 2/19 (11%); ≥ 36 months, 3/20 (15%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Re-administration of platinum-based chemotherapy for recurrent endometrial cancer may result in a long-term response exceeding the platinum-free interval in some patients. Even in the current situation, where immune checkpoint inhibitors have been introduced, re-administration of platinum-based chemotherapy is worth considering.

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.

Significance of definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for vulvar cancer: a Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group nationwide survey study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to show the results of radical radiation therapy (RT) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for vulvar cancer (VC) based on data from a Japanese nationwide survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data from 108 institutions on cases of VC diagnosed between January 2001 and December 2010. Patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma with curative intent were selected, and 172 patients with VC were included in this study. The collected data were analyzed for overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine the prognostic factors for patients with VC. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 16.8 (range; 3.2-154.8) months. Fifty-five patients received CCRT, and 117 patients received RT alone. The 2-year OS rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) for stages I, II, III, and IV were 77.9% (55.8-100.0), 71.9% (53.8-89.9), 55.4% (42.5-68.3), and 41.5% (27.3-55.7) respectively. Univariate analyses showed that the FIGO stage (p = 0.001), tumor diameter (p = 0.005), and lymph node (LN) status (p = 0.001) were associated with OS. The concurrent use of chemotherapy resulted in a significantly longer OS in Stage III (p = 0.013). Multivariate analysis showed that the hazard ratios (95% CI) for tumor diameter, positivity for LN metastasis, and RT alone (no concurrent chemotherapy) were 1.502 (1.116-2.021), 1.801 (1.287-2.521), and 1.936 (1.187-3.159), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed that CCRT should be recommended, especially for Stage III VC patients. Further studies are warranted to determine who benefits from CCRT, considering primary tumor size and LN status. The study was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (protocol number: UMIN000017080) on April 8th, 2015.

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 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 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.

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.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer (BEATcc): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10-GEICO 68-C-JGOG1084-GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3-16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7-11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3-36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3-28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52-0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patients in the experimental group and in 75% of patients in the standard group. Grade 1-2 diarrhoea, arthralgia, pyrexia, and rash were increased with atezolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer significantly improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered as a new first-line therapy option. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Heterogeneous treatment effects of adjuvant therapy for patients with cervical cancer in the intermediate-risk group.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of adjuvant therapy for patients with cervical cancer with intermediate risk (CC-IR) remains controversial. We examined the impact of adjuvant therapy on survival outcomes in patients with CC-IR and evaluated the heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) of adjuvant therapies based on clinicopathologic characteristics. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a previous Japanese nationwide cohort of 6192 patients with stage IB-IIB cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy. We created two pairs of propensity score-matched treatment/control groups to investigate the treatment effects of adjuvant therapies: (1) adjuvant therapy versus non-adjuvant therapy; (2) chemotherapy versus radiotherapy conditional on adjuvant therapy. Multivariate analyses with treatment interactions were performed to evaluate the HTEs. RESULTS: Among the 1613 patients with CC-IR, 619 and 994 were in the non-treatment and treatment groups, respectively. Survival outcomes did not differ between the two groups: 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 88.1% and 90.3% in the non-treatment and treatment groups, respectively (p = 0.199). Of the patients in the treatment group, 654 and 340 received radiotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively. Patients who received chemotherapy had better PFS than those who received radiotherapy (3-year PFS, 90.9% vs. 82.9%, p = 0.010). Tumor size was a significant factor that affected the treatment effects of chemotherapy; patients with large tumors gained better therapeutic effects from chemotherapy than those with small tumors. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy is optional for some patients with CC-IR; however, chemotherapy can be recommended as adjuvant therapy, particularly for patients with large tumors.

Final analysis of a randomized phase II/III trial of conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab versus dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab, in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical carcinoma (JCOG1311).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical carcinoma, we conducted a phase II/III randomized controlled study comparing dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab to conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab. However, at the primary analysis of the phase II part, the response rate in the dose-dense arm was not higher than in the conventional arm and the study was terminated early before starting phase III. After a further 2 years of follow-up, we conducted this final analysis. METHODS: 122 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the conventional or dose-dense arm. After bevacizumab was approved in Japan, patients in both arms received bevacizumab if not contraindicated. In the final analysis, overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events were updated. RESULTS: The median follow-up of surviving patients was 34.8 months (range 19.2-64.8). Median overall survival in the conventional arm was 17.7 months and in the dose-dense arm 18.5 months (p=0.71). Median progression-free survival in the conventional arm was 7.9 months and in the dose-dense arm 7.2 months (p=0.64). A platinum-free interval within 24 weeks and treatment without bevacizumab were identified as prognostic factors for overall and progression-free survival. Grade 3 to 4 non-hematologic toxicity occurred in 46.7% of patients who received the conventional regimen and in 43.3% of patients who received the dose-dense regimen. Adverse events related to bevacizumab in 82 patients included fistula in five (6.1%) and gastrointestinal perforation in three (3.7%). CONCLUSIONS: It was confirmed that dose-dense paclitaxel plus carboplatin for metastatic or recurrent cervical carcinoma is not superior to conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin. Patients who had early refractory disease after prior chemoradiotherapy had the poorest prognosis. The development of treatments that improve the prognosis of such patients remains an important issue. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: jRCTs031180007.