Examination of the Usefulness of Standby Therapy for Refractory Chylous Ascites After Multiple Lymphangiography Interventions.

Chylous ascites is infrequently observed following lymph node dissection in surgeries for gynecological malignancies. If symptoms develop, they can severely debilitate patients and increase the risk of infection, particularly those with a low performance status following the primary operation. Treatment of chylous ascites is often challenging and protracted, with no treatment currently guaranteeing a complete cure. This study explores the efficacy of standby therapy for refractory chylous ascites in a 46-year-old woman with gynecological malignancies who did not respond to multiple lymphangiographic interventions. Due to a suspicion of left ovarian cancer, she underwent surgery including lymph node dissection. On the following day, significant amounts of ascites were confirmed in the abdominal cavity. Despite performing lymphangiography twice, the chylous ascites persisted. During follow-up in the outpatient ward, on the 142nd post-surgery day, the ascites had spontaneously resolved. In cases like this, where symptoms are relatively mild and surgical intervention is not preferred due to complications or patient preference following lymphangiography, it may be beneficial to use standby therapy in combination with dietary management during outpatient follow-up. Such an approach could yield medium- to long-term improvements and should be considered. However, if further treatment is planned following the initial surgery, the patient's long-term prognosis should be considered, and treatment should be administered promptly. Various methods exist for treating refractory chylous ascites, including expectant therapy, dietary management, percutaneous drainage, lymphangiography and embolization, and surgical lymphatic ligation. Tailoring individualized treatment plans for each patient and pursuing a multidisciplinary approach is advisable. Although initiating adjuvant chemotherapy may not be feasible, long-term standby therapy is beneficial, even if lymphangiography proves ineffective in the short term.

Niraparib as maintenance therapy in Japan: a retrospective observational study using a Japanese claims database.

OBJECTIVE: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the leading cause of female mortality in gynecologic malignancies, with a rising incidence in Japan. This study aimed to validate the treatment patterns and safety of niraparib as maintenance therapy for EOC following initial chemotherapy in clinical practice in Japan. METHODS: Leveraging claims data between April 2008 and December 2022, this descriptive study comprised EOC-diagnosed patients receiving initial platinum-based chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and niraparib as maintenance therapy. Patient characteristics, prescription status, transfusion details, and laboratory data were assessed and reported as summary statistics and frequencies. RESULTS: Among 291 patients, the median age was 64.0 years and 94.5% received a 200-mg daily dose of niraparib. At week 12, 78.7% (229/291) continued niraparib treatment, 21.3% (62/291) discontinued, and 52.2% (152/291) required treatment interruptions. Of the 62 patients who discontinued treatment, 27 patients initiated subsequent EOC treatment within 12 weeks following niraparib discontinuation. Blood transfusions were needed in 10.3% (30/291), and of 55 patients with available laboratory data, 61.8% (34/55) had decreased platelet count <100,000/µL, 25.5% (14/55) had decreased hemoglobin level <8 g/dL, and 22.7% (5/22) had decreased neutrophil count <1,000/µL, meeting the criteria for treatment interruption. Among those with thrombocytopenia, 88.2% (30/34) were able to either resume or continue treatment. CONCLUSION: Niraparib demonstrated favorable tolerability in Japanese patients with advanced EOC, with effective management of thrombocytopenia through dose adjustments and supportive care, supporting its viability as post-chemotherapy maintenance therapy.

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

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

Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for patients with non-round cell soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an essential supportive agent for chemotherapy-induced severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, "Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for non-round cell soft tissue sarcoma (NRC-STS)?" and CQ #2, "Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve NRC-STS treatment outcomes?" for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: A literature search was performed on the primary prophylactic use of G-CSF for NRC-STSs. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival, incidence of febrile neutropenia, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: Eighty-one and 154 articles were extracted from the literature search for CQs #1 and #2, respectively. After the first and second screening, one and two articles were included in the final evaluation, respectively. Only some studies have addressed these two clinical questions through a literature review. CONCLUSION: The clinical questions were converted to future research questions because of insufficient available data. The statements were proposed: "The benefit of primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STS" and "The benefit of intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STSs." G-CSF is often administered as primary prophylaxis when chemotherapy with severe myelosuppression is administered. However, its effectiveness and safety are yet to be scientifically proven.

Effectiveness and safety of 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 granulocyte colony-stimulating factor priming regimen for acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guideline for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remain poor. Although the concomitant use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and anti-chemotherapeutic agents has been investigated to improve the antileukemic effect on AML, its usefulness remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effects of G-CSF priming as a remission induction therapy or salvage chemotherapy. METHODS: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to the priming effect of G-CSF using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and risk ratios (RRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and summarized. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted and accessed the 278 records identified during the initial screening, and 62 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility in second screening. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 10 in the meta-analysis. A systematic review revealed that priming with G-CSF did not correlate with an improvement in response rate and overall survival (OS). The result of the meta-analysis revealed the tendency for lower relapse rate in the G-CSF priming groups without inter-study heterogeneity [RR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), p = 0.08; I2 = 4%, p = 0.35]. In specific populations, including patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk and those receiving high-dose cytarabine, the G-CSF priming regimen prolonged OS. CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF priming in combination with intensive remission induction treatment is not universally effective in patients with AML. Further studies are required to identify the patient cohort for which G-CSF priming is recommended.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. CONCLUSION: A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations. RESULTS: After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records. CONCLUSION: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUD: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days. METHODS: This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes. RESULTS: Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/µL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

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.

Phase II study of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and bevacizumab for first recurrent and refractory ovarian clear cell carcinoma Kansai Clinical Oncology Group-G1601.

Patients with advanced ovarian clear cell carcinoma (CCC) have a poor prognosis in the absence of an effective standard treatment. Combination therapy with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and bevacizumab (GPBev) is promising for ovarian CCC. Thus, we conducted a multi-institutional, phase II trial in Japan to examine the efficacy and safety of GPBev for CCC. This is the first study on the use of GPBev for CCC. Eighteen patients (median age, 56.5 years) with pathologically confirmed first recurrent or refractory CCC and having evaluable regions, as assessed using RECIST, were recruited between January 2017 and May 2019. Gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 ), cisplatin (40 mg/m 2 ), and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) were administered intravenously on days 1 and 15, every 28 days, for 6-10 cycles, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs). Fifteen patients (83.3%) completed 6-10 cycles of treatment; three patients (two with AEs and one with progressive disease) did not. The ORR was 61.1% [complete response (CR) 3 and partial response (PR) 8] and DCR was 88.9% (CR 3, PR 8, and stable disease 5). Grade 3 and 4 hematological AEs were observed in 16.7 and 5.6% of the patients, respectively. Nonhematological AEs of grades 3 and 4 were observed in 27.8 and 5.6% of the patients, respectively. GPBev is a promising therapy for CCC owing to the high ORR and acceptable toxicity for the first recurrence and refractory CCC.

Clinicopathological features and programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemical expression in a multicenter cohort of uterine and ovarian melanomas: a retrospective study in Japan (KCOG-G1701s).

The objective of this study was to propose prognostic factors and optimal treatment strategies by analyzing the clinicopathological features and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. We analyzed 31 patients diagnosed with uterine or ovarian melanoma between 1997 and 2017 in the Kansai Clinical Oncology Group/Intergroup. Twenty-four and seven patients with cervical and ovarian melanomas were included, respectively. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were used in seven patients, and the objective response rate was 40%. Notably, two patients with objective responses had a high PD-L1 expression. Ten and four patients with cervical and ovarian melanomas, respectively, had high PD-L1 immunohistochemical expressions. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor stage was an independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival in patients with cervical melanomas. In patients with ovarian melanomas, the 1-year cumulative progression-free and overall survival rates were 0 and 29%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed that age <60 years was associated with poorer progression-free and overall survivals in patients with ovarian melanomas. In patients with cervical melanomas, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative overall survival rates were 53, 32, and 16%, respectively. Histological atypia was associated with a poorer progression-free survival, but there was no difference in survival between patients who underwent radical hysterectomy and those who did not. The present study is a large cohort study of uterine and ovarian melanomas, which are aggressive tumors with a significantly poor prognosis, even after standard surgery and adjuvant therapy. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is a promising and effective treatment option.

Paraneoplastic AQP4-IgG-Seropositive Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder Associated With Teratoma: A Case Report and Literature Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess a case of paraneoplastic aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-immunoglobulin G (IgG)-seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) associated with teratoma and determine whether it is a paraneoplastic neurologic disorder. METHODS: A single case study and literature review of 5 cases. RESULTS: A 27-year-old woman presented with diplopia, facial nerve palsy, paraplegia, sensory dysfunction of lower limbs, dysuria, nausea, and vomiting. Spinal cord MRI detected an extensive longitudinal lesion in the spinal cord, and brain MRI detected abnormal lesions in the right cerebral peduncle and tegmentum of the pons. CSF analysis revealed positive oligoclonal IgG bands (OCBs). The patient tested positive for AQP4-IgG, confirming a diagnosis of NMOSD. An abdominal CT scan detected an ovarian tumor. After steroid therapy and tumor removal, the patient progressively improved, with only mild sensory dysfunction. Histopathologic analysis of the tumor revealed a teratoma and the presence of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)+ neural tissue with AQP4 immunoreactivity, accompanied by lymphocyte infiltration. Including the present case, there have been 6 reported cases of AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD associated with ovarian teratoma (mean onset age, 32.7 years). Of these patients, 5 (83%) presented with nausea and/or vomiting, positive OCB, and dorsal brainstem involvement. Pathologic analyses of the teratoma were available in 5 cases, including the present case, revealing neural tissue with AQP4 immunoreactivity and lymphocyte infiltration in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that ovarian teratoma may trigger the development of AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD. Further studies are needed to elucidate the pathogenesis of teratoma-associated NMOSD.

Correlation of World Health Organization 2010 Classification for Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms with the Prognosis of Ovarian Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Kansai Clinical Oncology Group-Protocol Review Committee/Intergroup Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a classification system introducing neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) of the female reproductive tract, excluding the ovaries. This study aimed to evaluate whether retrospective adaption of the gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-NEN classification is feasible for ovarian NENs (O-NENs) and correlates with prognosis. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients diagnosed with carcinoid, small cell carcinoma (pulmonary type), paraganglioma, non-small/large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), mixed NEC, or undifferentiated carcinomas at 20 institutions in Japan were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study. We identified O-NENs through central pathological review using a common slide set, followed by reclassification according to WHO 2010 guidelines for GEP-NENs. A proportional hazards model was used to assess the association of prognostic factors (age, stage, performance status, histology, and residual disease) with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of the 68 enrolled patients, 48 were eligible for analysis. All carcinoids (n = 32) were reclassified as NET G1/G2, whereas 14 of 16 carcinomas were reclassified as NEC/mixed adeno-NEC (MANEC) (Fisher's exact test; p < 0.01). The OS/PFS was 49.0/42.5 months and 6.5/3.9 months for NET G1/G2 and NEC/MANEC, respectively. Histology revealed that NEC/MANEC was associated with increased risk of death (HR = 48.0; 95% CI, 3.93-586; p < 0.01) and disease progression (HR = 51.6; 95% CI, 5.54-480; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Retrospective adaption of GEP-NEN classification to O-NENs is feasible and correlates well with the prognosis of O-NENs. This classification could be introduced for ovarian tumors.

Randomized phase III trial comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) at 50 mg/m² versus 40 mg/m² in patients with platinum-refractory and -resistant ovarian carcinoma: the JGOG 3018 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The standard dose for pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) is 50 mg/m² every 4 weeks. While 40 mg/m² has recently been used in clinical practice, evidence supporting this use remains lacking. METHODS: This phase III randomized, non-inferiority study compared progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma between an experimental arm (40 mg/m² PLD) and a standard arm (50 mg/m² PLD) until 10 courses, disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Eligible patients had received ≤2 prior lines. Stratification was by performance status and PFS of prior chemotherapy (<3 months versus ≥3 months). The primary endpoint was PFS and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), toxicity profile, clinical response and tolerability. The total number of patients was 470. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely closed due to slow recruitment, with 272 patients randomized to the experimental arm (n=137) and standard arm (n=135). Final analysis was performed with 234 deaths and 269 events for PFS. In the experimental arm vs. standard arm, median PFS was 4.0 months vs. 4.0 months (hazard ratio [HR]=1.065; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.830-1.366) and median OS was 14.0 months vs. 14.0 months (HR=1.078; 95% CI=0.831-1.397). Hematologic toxicity and oral cavity mucositis (≥grade 2) were more frequent in the standard arm than in the experimental arm, but no difference was seen in ≥grade 2 hand-foot skin reaction. CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of 2 PLD dosing schedule was not confirmed because the trial was closed prematurely. However, recommendation of dose reduction of PLD should be based both on efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000003130.

Clinical status and prognostic factors in Japanese patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is a rare gynecologic malignancy for which the currently available treatments do not consistently provide long-term disease control. This study aimed to reveal the current clinical status of uLMS to support future clinical trials. METHODS: This study enrolled patients with uLMS treated at 53 Japanese institutions from 2000 to 2012. Central pathological review (CPR) was performed. All cases were confirmed by CPR, and epidemiological features, treatment, and prognosis were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were enrolled. A diagnosis of uLMS was confirmed in 266 patients (86.6%) of patients after CPR, of whom data for 259 were analyzed. Of these, 186 (71.8%) patients underwent complete gross resection as primary therapy. Ninety-eight patients received no additional adjuvant therapy, while docetaxel and gemcitabine was the most frequent regimen among 155 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. In all cases, the median overall survival (OS) was 44.2 months. Multivariate analyses of prognostic factors in all cases identified stage III and IV disease, high serum lactate dehydrogenase level, and menopausal status as poor prognostic factors. However, in stage I cases, high serum lactate dehydrogenase level and no adjuvant treatment were identified as poor prognostic factors. The 5-year OS of patients with stage I uLMS treated with adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly better than that of those without adjuvant treatment (67.8% vs 46.7%, P = 0.0461). CONCLUSIONS: Despite complete removal of the primary lesion, the clinical course of patients with uLMS was poor due to recurrence of distant metastasis. The application of a suitable biomarker and effective adjuvant chemotherapy are required to improve the prognosis of patients with uLMS.