Streptococcus pneumoniae endopeptidase O induces trained immunity against numerous pathogen infections, a key role for G-CSF.

Antibiotic resistance and the surge of infectious diseases during the pandemic present significant threats to human health. Trained immunity emerges as a promising and innovative approach to address these infections. Synthetic or natural fungal, parasitic and viral components have been reported to induce trained immunity. However, it is not clear whether bacterial virulence proteins can induce protective trained immunity. Our research demonstrates Streptococcus pneumoniae virulence protein PepO, is a highly potent trained immunity inducer for combating broad-spectrum infection. Our findings showcase that rPepO training confers robust protection to mice against various pathogenic infections by enhancing macrophage functionality. rPepO effectively re-programs macrophages, re-configures their epigenetic modifications and bolsters their immunological responses, which is independent of T or B lymphocytes. In vivo and in vitro experiments confirm that trained macrophage-secreted complement C3 activates peritoneal B lymphocyte and enhances its bactericidal capacity. In addition, we provide the first evidence that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) derived from trained macrophages plays a pivotal role in shaping central-trained immunity. In summation, our research demonstrates the capability of rPepO to induce both peripheral and central trained immunity in mice, underscoring its potential application in broad-spectrum anti-infection therapy. Our research provides a new molecule and some new target options for infectious disease prevention.

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.

Cell-type specific molecular expression levels by restricted-dimensional cytometry.

BACKGROUND: Cytometric analysis has been commonly used to delineate distinct cell subpopulations among peripheral blood mononuclear cells by the differential expression of surface receptors. This capability has reached its apogee with high-dimensional approaches such as mass cytometry and spectral cytometry that include simultaneous assessment of 20-50 analytes. Unfortunately, this approach also engenders significant complexity with analytical and interpretational pitfalls. METHODS: Here, we demonstrate a complementary approach with restricted-dimensionality to assess cell-type specific intracellular molecular expression levels at exceptional levels of precision. The expression of five analytes was individually assessed in four mononuclear cell-types from peripheral blood. RESULTS: Distinctions in expression levels were seen between cell-types and between samples from different donor groups. Mononuclear cell-type specific molecular expression levels distinguished pregnant from nonpregnant women and G-CSF-treated from untreated persons. Additionally, the precision of our analysis was sufficient to quantify a novel relationship between two molecules-Rel A and translocator protein-by correlational analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Restricted-dimensional cytometry can provide a complementary approach to define characteristics of cell-type specific intracellular protein and phosphoantigen expression in mononuclear cells.

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.

Survivors of polymicrobial sepsis are refractory to G-CSF-induced emergency myelopoiesis and hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell mobilization.

Sepsis survivors exhibit immune dysfunction, hematological changes, and increased risk of infection. The long-term impacts of sepsis on hematopoiesis were analyzed using a surgical model of murine sepsis, resulting in 50% survival. During acute disease, phenotypic hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) were reduced in the bone marrow (BM), concomitant with increased myeloid colony-forming units and extramedullary hematopoiesis. Upon recovery, BM HSPCs were increased and exhibited normal function in the context of transplantation. To evaluate hematopoietic responses in sepsis survivors, we treated recovered sham and cecal ligation and puncture mice with a mobilizing regimen of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at day 20 post-surgery. Sepsis survivors failed to undergo emergency myelopoiesis and HSPC mobilization in response to G-CSF administration. G-CSF is produced in response to acute infection and injury to expedite the production of innate immune cells; therefore, our findings contribute to a new understanding of how sepsis predisposes to subsequent infection.

Uterine infusion strategies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intra-uterine infusion treatments were reported to be beneficial to embryo implantation and pregnancy outcomes, and considered as potential therapies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Nevertheless, their efficiencies were controversial and there lack of consensus on which intrauterine treatment is the most effective. METHODS: All prospective trials (in Chinese or English) were searched in Databases PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CNKI from July 2013 to July 2023. We included studies that investigated various uterine infusions, including chorionic gonadotropin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, monocytes, platelet-rich plasma, etc. during IVF treatment and reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: We finally included 56 researches, including 40 randomized controlled trials, 14 non-randomized controlled trials, and 3 prospective cohort studies. This study included a total of 11 uterine perfusion methods: Placebo, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG), Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell (PBMC), Growth hormone (GH), dexamethasone (DEX), Embryo culture supernatant (ESC), PRP combined with G-CSF (PRP + G-CSF), RPR combined with subcutaneous injection of G-CSF (RPR + G-CSFsc), G-CSF combined with subcutaneous injection of AXaIU (G-CSF + AXaIUsc). Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP significantly improves pregnancy outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure compared with blank controls or placebo, and PRP improved the clinical pregnancy and live birth most. GH and ESC infusion might improve the pregnancy outcomes, but uterine infusion of DEX was shown with high miscarriage. The combination therapy did not show a significant advantage over the mono-therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP are promising strategies for improving pregnancy outcomes for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure. Among these treatments, PRP may be the best. More researches are required to explore the effect of drug combinations and less commonly used drugs as well. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our study was registered in PROSPERO and the ID was CRD42023467188.

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.

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.

Radioprotective effectiveness of a novel delta-tocotrienol prodrug on mouse hematopoietic system against 60Co gamma-ray irradiation through inducing granulocyte-colony stimulating factor production.

Considering the increasing risk of nuclear attacks worldwide, the development of develop potent and safe radioprotective agents for nuclear emergencies is urgently needed. γ-tocotrienol (GT3) and δ-tocotrienol (DT3) have demonstrated a potent radioprotective effect by inducing the production of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in vivo. However, their application is limited because of their low bioavailability. The utilization of ester prodrugs can be an effective strategy for modifying the pharmacokinetic properties of drug molecules. In this study, we initially confirmed that DT3 exhibited the most significant potential for inducing G-CSF effects among eight natural vitamin E homologs. Consequently, we designed and synthesized a series of DT3 ester and ether derivatives, leading to improved radioprotective effects. The metabolic study conducted in vitro and in vivo has identified DT3 succinate 5b as a prodrug of DT3 with an approximately seven-fold higher bioavailability compared to DT3 alone. And DT3 ether derivative 8a were relatively stable and approximately 4 times more bioavailable than DT3 prototype. Furthermore, 5b exhibited superior ability to mitigate radiation-induced pancytopenia, enhance the recovery of bone marrow hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, and promote splenic extramedullary hematopoiesis in sublethal irradiated mice. Similarly, 8a shown potential radiation protection, but its radiation protection is less than DT3. Based on these findings, we identified 5b as a DT3 prodrug, and providing an attractive candidate for further drug development.

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.

Pain is what hurts: An exploration of perception and management of pain in peripheral blood stem cell donors.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a side effect of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) administration. This prospective study investigates various aspects including pain perception occurring in Peripheral Blood Stem Cell (PBSC) donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Related and unrelated PBSC donors were prospectively studied. Donors recorded pain symptoms during the four-day period of G-CSF administration using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, a Visual Analog Scale and a pain diary. RESULTS: There were 208 donors included, 102 (49%) related and 106 (51%) unrelated donors. Ninety-two percent of all reported the occurrence of pain. Moderate or severe pain was reported by 52%. No differences were found between related and unrelated donors. Pain occurred more often in females (p = 0.035). Relatively young donors (age 16-30 years) more frequently showed to have pain in comparison to older donors (>50 years) (p = 0.006). Musculoskeletal pain was most frequently distributed in the gluteal and lower back region (65-71%). Irrespective of the pain location, pain was most often described as nagging, annoying, however tolerable. Donors experiencing pain most on days of G-CSF administration, most frequently occurring during relaxation or at night. Sleep-mode was often affected. The use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) was sufficient for all but one donor. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to describe different aspects of pain associated with G-CSF administration in donors. Although the observed pain was tolerable, it should never be neglected. Knowledge derived from this study is of use for staff members involved in donor information and care management.

G-CSF + plerixafor versus G-CSF alone mobilized hematopoietic stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The combination of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor is one of the approaches for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the ability of G-CSF + plerixafor to mobilize peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ cells and examine its safety profile. METHODS: We performed a database search using the terms 'granulocyte colony stimulating factor', 'G-CSF', 'AMD3100', and 'plerixafor', published up to May 1, 2023. The methodology is described in further detail in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023425760). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF + plerixafor resulted in more patients achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells than G-CSF alone (OR, 5.33; 95%, 4.34-6.55). It was further discovered that G-CSF + plerixafor could mobilize more CD34+ cells into PB, which was beneficial for the next transplantation in both randomized controlled (MD, 18.30; 95%, 8.74-27.85) and single-arm (MD, 20.67; 95%, 14.34-27.00) trials. Furthermore, G-CSF + plerixafor did not cause more treatment emergent adverse events than G-CSF alone (OR, 1.25; 95%, 0.87-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the combination of G-CSF and plerixafor, resulted in more patients with MM, NHL, and HL, achieving the predetermined apheresis yield of CD34+ cells, which is related to the more effective mobilization of CD34+ cells into PB.

The Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor as Primary Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: An Experience of Moroccan Oncologists.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a frequent and serious emergency for oncologic patients undergoing chemotherapy. Using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia is an integral part of the management of cancer patients. Our study aims to identify the challenges that prevent Moroccan oncologists from prescribing G-CSF for primary prevention. Seventy doctors participated in our study, with a participation rate of 35.35%. Twenty-two participants had at least five years of experience in oncology. Most participants were medical oncologists (82.9%), and two-thirds of them practiced in teaching hospitals. Regarding the use of G-CSF in primary prevention, all participants complied with the recommendations for FN risk assessment and the prescription of G-CSF for prophylaxis in patients at high risk of FN (>20%). However, their use in intermediate-risk patients remains limited mainly by the cost of these drugs (45.7% of participants). FN remains a dreadful complication in oncology. Since the introduction of G-CSF into standard oncology practice, particularly in primary prevention, the management of certain patients has improved considerably. Nevertheless, the indications for G-CSF in our context, essentially in intermediate-risk patients, are uncertain.

Small-molecule CBP/p300 histone acetyltransferase inhibition mobilizes leukocytes from the bone marrow via the endocrine stress response.

Mutations of the CBP/p300 histone acetyltransferase (HAT) domain can be linked to leukemic transformation in humans, suggestive of a checkpoint of leukocyte compartment sizes. Here, we examined the impact of reversible inhibition of this domain by the small-molecule A485. We found that A485 triggered acute and transient mobilization of leukocytes from the bone marrow into the blood. Leukocyte mobilization by A485 was equally potent as, but mechanistically distinct from, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), which allowed for additive neutrophil mobilization when both compounds were combined. These effects were maintained in models of leukopenia and conferred augmented host defenses. Mechanistically, activation of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal gland (HPA) axis by A485 relayed shifts in leukocyte distribution through corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor 1 (CRHR1) and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), but independently of glucocorticoids. Our findings identify a strategy for rapid expansion of the blood leukocyte compartment via a neuroendocrine loop, with implications for the treatment of human pathologies.

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.

G-CSF improving combined whole brain radiotherapy and immunotherapy prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic advantage of G-CSF to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in combination with immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) brain metastases (BMs). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 117 patients (37 in G-CSF group and 80 in no G-CSF group) who underwent first-line WBRT combined with immunotherapy were enrolled. Their survival, intracranial response, BM-related symptoms and toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall survival (OS) of patients in G-CSF group was significantly improved compared to patients no G-CSF group (median time: 14.8 vs 10.2 months; HR: 0.61, 95 % CI: 0.38-0.97, p = 0.035). However, there were no significant differences in intracranial responses between the two groups (p > 0.05). The G-CSF group exhibited a significantly higher rate of relief from BM-related symptoms compared to the no G-CSF group (91.7 % vs 59.5 %, p = 0.037). Cox proportional hazards regression analyses indicated that after-treatment ALC > 0.9 × 10^9/L (HR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.32-0.99, p = 0.046) and Hb > 110 g/dL (HR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.24-0.71, p = 0.001) were significant potential factors associated with extended OS. The addition of G-CSF was well tolerated and effectively reduced the incidence of neutropenia (0 % vs 5.0 %, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Integrating G-CSF with WBRT and immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for NSCLC-BMs has exhibited significant efficacy and favorable tolerability.

Effect of lithium on chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in Egyptian breast cancer patients; a prospective clinical study.

PURPOSE: Myelosuppressive chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a major limitation of cancer treatment efficacy, necessitating very expensive supportive care. Lithium carbonate, an inexpensive drug, can increase the number of neutrophils, possibly providing an efficacious and cost-effective alternative for treating CIN. The aim of this study was to determine whether lithium therapy can attenuate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and leukopenia in breast cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 50 breast cancer patients were enrolled in this prospective, interventional, randomized, controlled, and single-blind study. The patients were divided into two groups: a control group (group 1, N = 25 patients) and a lithium-treated (treatment) group (group 2, N = 25 patients). Group 1 patients were further subclassified into a non-neutropenic control group (N = 16) and a neutropenic control (N = 9) based on the subsequent development of severe neutropenia, or not. The control group received 4 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by 2 cycles of paclitaxel. The treatment group received the same regimen as the control group as well as oral lithium carbonate throughout the chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: The results showed that the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was increased in the lithium-treated group, while it was markedly reduced in both the non-neutropenic and neutropenic control groups (by 55.56% and 65.42% post-4 chemotherapy cycles, and by 19.57% and 39.90% post-6 cycles, respectively). The same pattern of alterations was observed for the total white blood cell count in both the control and treatment groups. In addition, the incidence and period prevalence were greatly reduced in the lithium-treated group compared to non-neutropenic and neutropenic control groups. CONCLUSION: Lithium therapy ameliorated chemotherapy-induced leukopenia and neutropenia in breast cancer patients. This may provide a new strategy for cost-effective treatment of CIN, particularly in Egyptian cancer patients.