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.

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 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.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during dose-dense chemotherapy for urothelial cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, dose reduction or withdrawal is often preferred in the management of adverse events in the treatment of urothelial cancer. It is also important to maintain therapeutic intensity in order to control disease progression and thereby relieve symptoms, such as hematuria, infection, bleeding, and pain, as well as to prolong the survival. In this clinical question, we compared treatment with primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF to maintain therapeutic intensity with conventional standard therapy without G-CSF and examined the benefits and risks as major outcomes. A detailed literature search for relevant studies was performed using PubMed, Ichu-shi Web, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and evaluated independently by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and the risk ratios with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated and summarized in a meta-analysis. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, two of which were reviewed in the meta-analysis of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) therapy, and one randomized controlled study showed a reduction in the incidence of FN. Primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF may be beneficial, as shown in a randomized controlled study of dose-dense MVAC therapy. However, there are no studies on other regimens, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen (dose-dense MVAC).

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan society of clinical oncology.

Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains controversial due to a theoretically increased risk of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for AML with remission induction therapy. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of pooled data was conducted, and the risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated in the meta-analysis and summarized. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, nine of which were examined in the meta-analysis. Although G-CSF significantly shortened the duration of neutropenia, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not correlate with infection-related mortality. Moreover, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not affect disease progression/recurrence, overall survival, or adverse events, such as musculoskeletal pain. However, evidence to support or discourage the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for adult AML patients with induction therapy remains limited. Therefore, the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis can be considered for adult AML patients with remission induction therapy who are at a high risk of infectious complications.

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.

Japanese Lung Cancer Society Guidelines for Stage IV NSCLC With EGFR Mutations.

Patients with NSCLC in East Asia, including Japan, frequently contain EGFR mutations. In 2018, we published the latest full clinical practice guidelines on the basis of those provided by the Japanese Lung Cancer Society Guidelines Committee. The purpose of this study was to update those recommendations, especially for the treatment of metastatic or recurrent EGFR-mutated NSCLC. We conducted a literature search of systematic reviews of randomized controlled and nonrandomized trials published between 2018 and 2019 that multiple physicians had reviewed independently. On the basis of those studies and the advice from the Japanese Society of Lung Cancer Expert Panel, we developed updated guidelines according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. We also evaluated the benefits of overall and progression-free survival, end points, toxicities, and patients' reported outcomes. For patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR-activating mutations, the use of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs), especially osimertinib, had the best recommendation as to first-line treatment. We also recommended the combination of EGFR TKI with other agents (platinum-based chemotherapy or antiangiogenic agents); however, it can lead to toxicity. In the presence of EGFR uncommon mutations, except for an exon 20 insertion, we also recommended the EGFR TKI treatment. However, we could not provide recommendations for the treatment of EGFR mutations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, including monotherapy, and its combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy, because of the limited evidence present in the literature. The 2020 Japanese Lung Cancer Society Guidelines can help community-based physicians to determine the most appropriate treatments and adequately provide medical care to their patients.

A questionnaire survey of pharmacists regarding the clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines should be user-friendly and confirming their penetration rate and compliance are critical. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide web-based questionnaire survey among pharmacists regarding the 2013 guidelines for the appropriate use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) (version 2, published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology [JSCO]) between August 24 and September 6, 2015. RESULTS: A total of 301 pharmacists responded; 96.0% belonged to hospitals and were board-certified pharmacists in oncology pharmacy (n = 133) and palliative pharmacy (n = 78). In addition, 61.5% of respondents (n = 185) worked for designated cancer care hospitals. The observation that 75.7% of respondents knew that the JSCO guidelines are available on the internet indicated that several pharmacists used this guideline. A high degree of usability by pharmacists was also demonstrated, as 98.0% and 51.5% of respondents, respectively, agreed with the statements "it is useful for the work of pharmacists" and "it is referred to in the actual work of pharmacists". However, more than half of the respondents (58.4%) agreed with the phrase "there are differences from the actual work of pharmacists". CONCLUSIONS: Their responses indicated that the respondents used the G-CSF guidelines and viewed them positively; however, the observation that about half of the respondents reported feeling that the guidelines do not match their current practice requires additional follow-up in future studies. The use of these guidelines should be routinely assessed in order to introduce novel cancer chemotherapy regimens and long-acting G-CSF in clinical practice.

Association of serum total bilirubin with renal outcome in Japanese patients with stages 3-5 chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Serum bilirubin has been reported to be associated with the progression of kidney disease in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Less is known, however, about the relationship between bilirubin and chronic kidney disease (CKD) of other etiologies. This study was designed to clarify whether serum total bilirubin concentration is associated with kidney disease progression in patients with CKD independent of etiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled 279 consecutive patients with stages 3-5 CKD. The renal endpoint was the composite of the doubling of serum creatinine or end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis. Patients were divided into three groups by their serum total bilirubin concentrations: ≤0.3 (lowest), 0.4-0.5 (middle), and ≥0.6 (highest) mg/dL. A Cox proportional hazards model was applied to determine the risk factors for poor renal outcome. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 21months. One-hundred and three patients reached renal end points. After multivariable adjustment, a 0.1mg/dL increase in serum bilirubin was associated negatively with poor renal outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.87). In addition, after adjustment for confounding factors, including traditional and nontraditional cardiovascular risk factors, the middle (HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.36-8.57) and lowest (HR 4.22, 95% CI 1.81-11.59) bilirubin groups had significantly higher HRs for renal outcome than the highest bilirubin group. CONCLUSIONS: Lower serum bilirubin concentration was independently associated with adverse renal outcomes, suggesting that the measurement of serum bilirubin is useful for predicting kidney disease progression in patients with moderate to severe CKD.

Ankle-brachial blood pressure index predicts cardiovascular events and mortality in Japanese patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis.

The ankle-brachial blood pressure index (ABPI) has been recognized to have a predictive value for cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality in general or dialysis populations. However, the associations between ABPI and those outcomes have not been fully investigated in predialysis patients. The present study aimed to clarify the relationships between ABPI and both CV events and mortality in Japanese chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients not on dialysis. In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 320 patients with CKD stages 3-5 who were not on dialysis. At baseline, ABPI was examined and a low ABPI was defined as <0.9. CV events and all-cause deaths were examined in each patient. A Cox proportional hazards model was applied to determine the risk factors for CV events, as well as for mortality from CV and all causes. The median follow-up period was 30 months. CV events occurred in 56 patients and all-cause deaths occurred in 48, including 20 CV deaths. Multivariate analysis showed that age and low ABPI were risk factors for CV events. It was demonstrated that age, a history of cerebrovascular disease and low ABPI were determined as independent risk factors for CV mortality. In addition, age, body mass index and low ABPI were independently associated with all-cause mortality. In patients with CKD, low ABPI during the predialysis period is independently associated with poor survival and CV events, suggesting the usefulness of measuring ABPI for predicting CV events and patient survival in CKD.

Progress of oral care and reduction of oral mucositis--a pilot study in a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation ward.

PURPOSE: Oral mucositis is a common symptomatic complication associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). We use simple strategies aimed to reduce oral mucositis by keeping the oral cavity clean and moist. Here, we report on the progress of oral care and the changes in the degree of oral mucositis. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the effects of our strategies on the prevalence and the severity of oral mucositis. METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive patients from 2003 to 2006 administered with conventional allogeneic HCT were enrolled in this study. The degree of oral mucositis was evaluated daily in all patients. Our oral care program was divided into two periods: "examination and trial period (2003 and 2004)" and "intensive oral care period (2005 and 2006)." In the latter, an oral care regimen was carried out systematically by a multidisciplinary team. RESULTS: Using our oral care strategies, the prevalence of ulcerative oral mucositis was decreased significantly. The rate was reduced from 76% (10 of 13) of patients with ulcerative oral mucositis in 2003 to only 20% (3 of 15) in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study suggests that oral mucositis in HCT patients can be alleviated by simple strategies aimed at keeping the oral cavity clean and moist.

Oral mucositis in patients receiving reduced-intensity regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: comparison with conventional regimen.

GOALS OF WORK: Severe oral mucositis induced by allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is associated with intolerable pain and risk of systemic bacteremia infection. Differences between conventional HCT and reduced-intensity regimens for allogeneic HCT (RIST) may influence the occurrence and severity of oral mucositis. Here, we evaluated oral mucositis in patients undergoing RIST and compared the results with those in conventional allogeneic HCT patients to facilitate predictive measures for mucositis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 127 consecutive patients undergoing HCT (conventional, 63; RIST, 64) were included in this study. Severity of oral mucositis during HCT period was evaluated daily. Differences in severity of mucositis among HCT types were analyzed. Use of morphine to control pain due to oral mucositis was evaluated in each HCT method. MAIN RESULTS: The severity of oral mucositis was reduced in patients undergoing RIST. Worsening of oral mucositis was delayed in patients receiving RIST. Use of morphine to control pain due to oral mucositis was significantly decreased in patients undergoing RIST compared with those receiving conventional allogeneic HCT. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of oral mucositis was reduced and the peak day of oral mucositis was delayed in RIST patients compared with those receiving conventional HCT.