Clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease in patients with breast cancer treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor following chemotherapy: Triangulation of evidence using population-based cohort and Mendelian randomization analyses.

Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in patients with cancer and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains controversial. Concerns exist that it may worsen COVID-19 outcomes by triggering an inflammatory cytokine storm, despite its common use for managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) or febrile neutropenia post-chemotherapy. Here, we determined whether prophylactic or therapeutic G-CSF administration following chemotherapy exacerbates COVID-19 progression to severe/critical conditions in breast cancer patients with COVID-19. Between December 2022 and February 2023, all 503 enrolled breast cancer patients had concurrent COVID-19 and received G-CSF post-chemotherapy, with most being vaccinated pre-chemotherapy. We prospectively observed COVID-19-related adverse outcomes, conducted association analyses, and subsequently performed Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to validate the causal effect of genetically predicted G-CSF or its associated granulocyte traits on COVID-19 adverse outcomes. Only 0.99% (5/503) of breast cancer patients experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization following prophylactic or therapeutic G-CSF administration after chemotherapy. No mortality or progression to severe/critical COVID-19 occurred after G-CSF administration. Notably, no significant associations were observed between the application, dosage, or response to G-CSF and COVID-19-related hospitalization (all p >.05). Similarly, the MR analyses showed no evidence of causality of genetically predicted G-CSF or related granulocyte traits on COVID-19-related hospitalization or COVID-19 severity (all p >.05). There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the notion that the prophylactic or therapeutic administration of G-CSF after chemotherapy for managing CIN in patients with breast cancer and COVID-19 would worsen COVID-19 outcomes, leading to severe or critical conditions, or even death, especially considering the context of COVID-19 vaccination.

Venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent versus cytarabine, aclarubicin, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor chemotherapy as a first-line therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent (VEN/HMA) and cytarabine, aclarubicin, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (CAG) are low-intensity regimens for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that show good efficacy and safety. It is unknown how VEN/HMA compares with the CAG regimen for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML. METHODS: The outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with VEN/HMA were compared with those of patients treated with a CAG-based regimen. Propensity score matching between these two cohorts at a 1:1 ratio was performed according to age at diagnosis, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, state of fitness, and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022 risk stratification to minimize bias. RESULTS: A total of 84 of 96 patients in the VEN/HMA cohort were matched with 84 of 147 patients in the CAG cohort. VEN/HMA resulted in a better response than the CAG-based regimens, as indicated by a higher composite complete remission (CRc) rate (82.1% vs. 60.7%; p = .002) and minimal residual disease negativity rate (88.2% vs. 68.2%; p = .009). In patients with an ELN adverse risk, VEN/HMA was associated with a higher CRc rate compared to CAG (80.5% vs. 58.3%; p = .006). VEN/HMA was associated with longer event-free survival (EFS) (median EFS, not reached vs. 4.5 months; p = .0004), whereas overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two cohorts (median OS, not reached vs. 18 months; p = .078). CONCLUSIONS: The VEN/HMA regimen may result in a better response than CAG-based treatment in older patients with newly diagnosed AML.

Multiple small-dose infusions of G-CSF-mobilized haploidentical lymphocytes after autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukaemia.

This retrospective study analysed 106 acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients undergoing autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) to assess the impact of multiple small-dose infusions of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-mobilized haploidentical lymphocytes as post-ASCT maintenance therapy. Among them, 50 patients received lymphocyte maintenance therapy, 21 received alternative maintenance therapy, and 35 received no maintenance therapy. Patients receiving lymphocyte maintenance therapy demonstrated significantly higher overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) compared to those without maintenance therapy, with 4-year OS and DFS rates notably elevated. While there were no significant differences in recurrence rates among the three groups, lymphocyte maintenance therapy showcased particular benefits for intermediate-risk AML patients, yielding significantly higher OS and DFS rates and lower relapse rates compared to alternative maintenance therapy and no maintenance therapy. The study suggests that multiple small-dose infusions of G-CSF-mobilized haploidentical lymphocytes may offer promising outcomes for AML patients after ASCT, particularly for those classified as intermediate-risk. These findings underscore the potential efficacy of lymphocyte maintenance therapy in reducing disease relapse and improving long-term prognosis in this patient population.

The Impact of Prophylactic Post-Chemotherapy G-CSF on the Relapse Rates in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Meta-Analysis.

This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prophylactic post-chemotherapy granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Overall, the relapse rate, overall survival, event-free survival, and mortality rate were similar in G-CSF (+) compared to G-CSF (-) patients. However, the relative risk (RR) of relapse was higher in children and in secondary AML patients who were treated with G-CSF compared to the G-CSF (-) group [RR, 95% confidence interval: 1.26, 1.04-1.52, and 1.12 (1.02-1.24)]. Treatment with post-chemotherapy G-CSF should be prescribed with caution in pediatric patients with AML and secondary AML as possibly increasing the relapse risk.

A randomized, multicenter phase III Study of once-per-cycle administration of efbemalenograstim alfa (F-627), a novel long-acting rhG-CSF, for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: F-627 (efbemalenograstim alfa) is a novel long acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) that contains two human G-CSF fused to a human immunoglobulin G2 (hIgG2) -Fc fragment with a peptide linker. This studyevaluated the efficacy and safety of F-627, also known as efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta®) in reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim (GRAN®). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled non-inferiority study. Two hundred thirty nine (239) patients were enrolled in thirteen centers and received the chemotherapy with epirubicin (100 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) on day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of four cycles. Patients were randomized to receive either a single 20 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) injection of F-627 on day 3 of each cycle or daily s.c. injection of filgrastim 5 µg/kg/d starting from day 3 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in cycle 1. The safety profile was also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean (SD) duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.68 (1.10) and 0.71 (0.95) days for the F-627 and the filgrastim groups, respectively. The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the between-group median difference (F-627 vs filgrastim) in the duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0 day and the upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% CI was 0 day, which was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1-day. Results for all efficacy endpoints in cycles 2 - 4 were consistent with the results in cycle 1, however a trend towards a lower incidence and a shorter duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and grade 4 neutropenia was observed in the F-627 group compared with the filgrastim group. The ANC nadir in the F-627 group was significantly higher than that in the filgrastim group in each cycle. A single fixed dose of F-627 was well tolerated and as safe as standard daily filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: A single fixed dose of 20 mg of F-627 in each cycle was as safe and effective as a daily dose of filgrastim 5 µg/kg/d in reducing neutropenia and its complications in patients who received four cycles of EC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04174599, on 22/11/2019.

Pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for primary prophylaxis of neutropenia in patients with cervical cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) for primary prophylaxis of neutropenia in patients with cervical cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center, single-arm study, we enrolled patients (18-70 years) with 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC1r-IVA and IVB (distant metastasis only with inguinal lymph node metastasis) cervical cancer. Eligible patients should have normal function of the bone marrow (absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 2.0 × 109/L) and adequate hepatic and renal functions. Key exclusion criteria included: previous chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy; a history of bone marrow dysplasia or other hematopoietic abnormalities. All patients underwent radical radiotherapy (pelvic radiotherapy or extended-field irradiation) plus brachytherapy. The chemotherapy regimen included four cycles of 3-weekly paclitaxel and cisplatin. PEG-rhG-CSF was administered 48-72 h after each treatment cycle. Salvage granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was only permitted in certain circumstances. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia. The secondary endpoints included frequency of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy completion rate in cycles 2-4, time to complete radiotherapy, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 52 patients were enrolled in this study from July 2019 to October 2020. The incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia was 28.8%, with an average duration of grade 3-4 neutropenia persistence of 3.85 days (1-7 days). The incidence rate of FN was 3.8%. The chemotherapy completion rate was 94.2%, 82.7%, and 75.0% for cycles 2-4, respectively. The incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia for cycles 1-4 were 9.6% (5/52), 8.2% (4/49), 14.0% (6/43), and 2.6% (1/39), respectively. All patients completed radiotherapy within 8 weeks (median, 48 days; range: 41-56 days), except one patient who withdrew consent and did not receive radiotherapy. Severe non-hematologic toxicity was not observed in any patient. CONCLUSION: PEG-rhG-CSF is an effective and safe prophylactic treatment for neutropenia in patients with cervical cancer undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900024494. Date of Registration:13/July/2019.

Comparison of two autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization strategies in patients with multiple myeloma: CE plus G-CSF versus G-CSF only: A single-center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma, high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an essential therapeutic keystone. As for the stem cell mobilization procedure, different regimens have been established, usually consisting of a cycle of chemotherapy followed by application of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), although febrile neutropenia is a common complication. Following national guidelines, our institution decided to primarily use G-CSF only mobilization during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize the patients' risk of infection and to reduce the burden on the health system. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective single-center analysis, the efficacy and safety of G-CSF only mobilization was evaluated and compared to a historic control cohort undergoing chemotherapy-based mobilization by cyclophosphamide and etoposide (CE) plus G-CSF. RESULTS: Although G-CSF only was associated with a higher need for plerixafor administration (p < .0001) and a higher number of apheresis sessions per patient (p = .0002), we were able to collect the target dose of hematopoietic stem cells in the majority of our patients. CE mobilization achieved higher hematopoietic stem cell yields (p = .0015) and shorter apheresis sessions (p < .0001) yet was accompanied by an increased risk of febrile neutropenia (p < .0001). There was no difference in engraftment after ASCT. DISCUSSION: G-CSF only mobilization is a useful option in selected patients with comorbidities and an increased risk of serious infections, especially in the wintertime or in future pandemics.

Impact of cladribine, cytarabine, and G-CSF (CLAG) as a bridging therapy prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

The combination of cladribine, cytarabine, and G-CSF (CLAG) has exhibited robust synergistic anti-leukemia activity as an induction therapy (IT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the impact of CLAG as a bridging therapy (BT) administered between IT and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML remains uncertain. In this retrospective study, we examined the efficacy of CLAG as a transitional strategy prior to allo-HSCT in R/R AML. We included 234 patients with R/R AML who received the modified busulfan plus cyclophosphamide conditioning regimen for allo-HSCT in our center during the past 6 years, performed a propensity-score matching analysis, partitioned them into four distinct cohorts, and further integrated them into the CLAG group and non-CLAG group based on response to IT and utilization of CLAG. Our cohorts encompassed 12 patients in Cohort A (modified composite complete remission (mCRc) after IT, CLAG), 31 in Cohort B (mCRc after IT, non-CLAG), 35 in Cohort C (non-complete remission (non-CR) after IT, CLAG), and 80 in Cohort D (non-CR after IT, non-CLAG). Intriguingly, among patients with non-CR status, the administration of CLAG correlated with a notably statistically diminished risk of relapse and improved survival at 2-year follow-up (Cohort C vs. Cohort D). Employing CLAG as a BT prior to allo-HSCT demonstrates substantial effectiveness, a relative degree of safety, and manageable toxicity in selected R/R AML cases.

Daratumumab and venetoclax combined with CAGE for late R/R T-ALL/LBL patients: Single-arm, open-label, phase I study.

The prognosis of patients diagnosed with relapsed or refractory (R/R) T-lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (T-ALL/LBL) has consistently been unsatisfactory, with limited treatment options. As reports, the CAG regimen can serve as a salvage treatment for R/R T-ALL/LBL, but there remains a subset of patients who do not benefit from it. Recent studies have indicated that daratumumab (Dara) and venetoclax (Ven) may offer promising therapeutic benefits for T-ALL/LBL. In light of these findings, we conducted a safety and efficacy evaluation of the enhanced treatment regimen, combining Dara and Ven with aclarubicin, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and etoposide (CAGE), in patients suffering from R/R T-ALL/LBL. The participants in this phase I trial were patients with R/R T-ALL/LBL who fail to standard treatment regimens. During each 28-day cycle, the patients were treated by Dara, Ven, cytarabine, aclarubicin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, etoposide. The primary endpoint of this study was the rate of remission. This report presents the prospective outcomes of 21 patients who received the salvage therapy of Dara and Ven combined with the CAGE regimen (Dara + Ven + CAGE). The objective remission rate (ORR) was determined to be 57.1%, while the complete remission (CR) rate was 47.6%. Notably, patients with the early T-cell precursor (ETP) subtype exhibited a significantly higher remission rate in the bone marrow compared to non-ETP patients (100% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.044). The Dara + Ven + CAGE regimen demonstrated a favorable remission rate in patients with R/R T-ALL/LBL. Moreover, the treatment was well-tolerated.

Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors-a questionnaire study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to delineate G-CSF treatment practices, assess decision criteria, and measure their implementation in ambulatory settings for patients with breast (BC), lung (LC), or gastrointestinal cancers (GIC), beyond standard recommendations. METHODS: In this non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study, clinical cases were presented using conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange. The clinical simulations were configured by four parameters: types of cancer, risk of FN related to chemotherapy and comorbidities, access to care, and therapy setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant/metastatic). RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 102 physicians. Most practitioners (84.5%) reported prescribing G-CSF, regardless of tumor type. G-CSF was prescribed more frequently for adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy than for metastatic cases. The type of chemotherapy was cited as the first reason for prescribing G-CSF, with access to care being the second. Regarding the type of chemotherapy, physicians do not consider this factor alone, but combined with comorbidities and age (56.7% of cases). Pegfilgrastim long-acting was prescribed in most cases of BC and LC (70.1% and 86%, respectively), while filgrastim short-acting was named in the majority of cases of GIC (61.7%); 76.3% of physicians prescribed G-CSF as primary prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that recommended practices are broadly followed. In the majority of cases, G-CSF is prescribed as primary prophylaxis. In addition, physicians seem more inclined to prescribe G-CSF to adjuvant/neoadjuvant patients rather than metastatic patients. Finally, the type of chemotherapy tends to be a more significant determining factor than the patient's background.

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 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.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor has the potential to attenuate the therapeutic efficacy of chemo-immunotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has the potential to attenuate the anti-tumor immune responses of T-cells by increasing immune suppressive neutrophils and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. However, the clinical impact of G-CSF on the efficacy of immunotherapy remains unknown. This multi-center retrospective analysis evaluated the impact of G-CSF in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) treated with chemo-immunotherapy. METHODS: We analyzed 65 patients with ES-SCLC who completed four cycles of induction chemo-immunotherapy and evaluated the effects of G-CSF on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and a durable response to immunotherapy (defined as PFS ≥ 12 months). RESULTS: Fifty patients (76.9%) received ≥ 1 dose of G-CSF. The PFS of the patients with G-CSF was poorer than that of the patients without G-CSF (median PFS 8.3 vs. 4.9 months, p = 0.009). The OS of the patients with G-CSF tended to be shorter, but not statistically significant, than that of the patients without G-CSF (median OS 24.3 vs. 16.4 months, p = 0.137). In the multivariate analysis, G-CSF administration was associated with poorer PFS (hazard ratio 2.78, 95% CI 1.36-5.69, p = 0.005) and was identified as a determinant of a durable response (odds ratio 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.80, p = 0.024). These results were consistent with other definitions of G-CSF administration (administration of ≥ 1 dose of pegfilgrastim, or either ≥ 5 doses of filgrastim or ≥ 1 dose of pegfilgrastim). CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF has the potential to attenuate the efficacy of immunotherapy; therefore, the indication for G-CSF during chemo-immunotherapy should be carefully considered for ES-SCLC.

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).

Optimizing autologous stem cell collections for patients with multiple myeloma receiving G-CSF and Plerixafor: A single center project.

BACKGROUND: Increasing indications for cellular therapy collections have stressed our healthcare system, with autologous collections having a longer than desired wait time until apheresis collection. This quality improvement initiative was undertaken to accommodate more patients within existing resources. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma who underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection from October 2022 to April 2023 were included. Demographic, mobilization, laboratory, and apheresis data were retrospectively collected from the medical record. RESULTS: This cohort included 120 patients (49.2% male), with a median age of 60 years. All received G-CSF and 95% received pre-emptive Plerixafor approximately 18 hours pre-collection. Most (79%) had collection goals of at least 8 × 106/kg CD34 cells, with 63% over 70 years old having this high collection goal (despite 20 years of institutional data showing <1% over 70 years old have a second transplant). With collection efficiencies of 55.9%, 44% of patients achieved their collection goal in a single day apheresis collection. A platelet count <150 × 103/µL on the day of collection was a predictor for poor mobilization; among 27 patients with a low baseline platelet count, 17 did not achieve the collection goal and 2 failed to collect a transplantable dose. CONCLUSIONS: With minor collection goal adjustments, 15% of all collection appointments could have been avoided over this 6-month period. Other strategies to accommodate more patients include mobilization modifications (Plerixafor timing or substituting a longer acting drug), utilizing platelet counts to predict mobilization, and modifying apheresis collection volumes or schedule templates.

Network meta-analysis of four common immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of patients with thin endometrium.

OBEJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of four common immunomodulatory therapies for patients with thin endometrium. METHOD: This systematic review and network meta-analysis using a literature search up to January 2024, to identify relevant trials comparing endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (IG-CSF), and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) for patients with thin endometrium. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) to ranked four common immunomodulatory therapies on endometrium thickness, implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and live birth rate (LBR). RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: The pooled results of 22 studies showed that hCG (mean difference [MD]: 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-4.64) and PRP (MD: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.20-1.76) significantly increase endometrium thickness. The hCG was the best among the IG-CSF (MD = -2.56, 95% CI = -4.30 to -0.82), PBMC (MD = -2.75, 95% CI = -5.49 to -0.01), and PRP (MD = -2.07, 95% CI = -3.84 to -0.30) in increasing endometrium thickness. However, IG-CSF and PRP significantly improved IR (IG-CSF: risk ratio (RR; IG-CSF: RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.06-1.67; PRP: RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.19-2.23), and LBR (IG-CSF: RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.16-2.02; PRP: RR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.08-2.36). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence reveals that hCG and subcutaneous or intrauterine CSF (SG-CSF) may be the best treatment options for current thin endometrium patients. However, future high-quality and large-scale studies are necessary to validate our findings.

[A Case of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor-Related Aortitis that Developed during the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer with Neuroendocrine Differentiation].

An 81-year-old man with prostate cancer (cT3aN0M0), who had been undergoing hormonal therapy for 4 years and had maintained low prostate specific antigen levels, developed metastasized pelvic lymph nodes. A tissue biopsy revealed neuroendocrine differentiation of prostate cancer in the metastatic lymph nodes. Consequently, chemotherapy with carboplatin＋etoposide was initiated. During the first course, filgrastim was administered for 2 days due to a drop in his neutrophil count to 230/µl. During the second course, pegfilgrastim was administered as prophylaxis on day 4. However, on day 10 of the second course, he started to develop a fever and fatigue. Suspecting infection, antibiotics were administered, but failed to ameliorate his symptoms. On day 14, plain computed tomography revealed signs of aortic inflammation. Given the lack of improvement even after one week of antibiotic therapy, steroid treatment was initiated on the suspicion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) -induced aortitis, which rapidly improved his symptoms. Therefore, when encountering a case in which a fever remains unresponsive to antibiotics during chemotherapy with G-CSF agents, a differential diagnosis of aortic inflammation caused by G-CSF agents needs to be considered.

[The Utility of Primary Prophylaxis with Pegfilgrastim in Combination with Polatuzumab Vedotin Therapy].

Polatuzumab vedotin(Pola)combination therapy is used for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(DLBCL)treatment. In clinical trials, more than 90% of the patients have received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor(G-CSF)as primary prophylaxis. However, reports investigating the benefit of prophylactic administration are lacking. In this study, we addressed the incidence of febrile neutropenia(FN)with and without primary prophylaxis with G-CSF combined with Pola therapy. We observed that the incidence of FN with Pola-BR therapy was 0% and 9.5% with and without G-CSF, respectively. The incidence of FN with Pola-R-CHP tended to be higher: 0% and 31.2% with and without G-CSF, respectively. The duration of hospitalization significantly decreased in the Pola-BR group with G-CSF(11 days vs. 18 days in the group without G-CSF), suggesting that prophylaxis might contribute to this reduction. Although not statistically significant, prophylactic G-CSF administration tended to reduce the incidence of Grade 3 or higher leukopenia and neutropenia, suggesting that primary prophylactic G-CSF administration in Pola combination therapy could contribute to reduced hematologic toxicity.