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

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

Effectiveness and safety of 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

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

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy for breast cancer can cause neutropenia, increasing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and serious infections. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis has been explored to mitigate these risks. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the "Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development" using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing using G-CSF as primary prophylaxis in invasive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and FN incidence. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis, and five RCTs were meta-analyzed for FN incidence. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in FN incidence with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (risk difference [RD] = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.43, p = 0.04). Evidence for improvement in OS with G-CSF was inconclusive. Four RCTs suggested a tendency for increased pain with G-CSF, but statistical significance was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is strongly recommended for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN. While the impact on OS is unclear, the benefits of reducing FN are considered to outweigh the potential harm of increased pain.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis 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.

Survey of the clinical practice pattern of using sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with gynecological cancers in Japan: the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology study.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SN) biopsy is essential for evaluating survival and minimal treatment-related morbidity associated with cervical, endometrial, and vulvar cancer in Japan. As such, our aim in this study was to evaluate the current practice pattern of using SN biopsy for cervical, endometrial, and vulvar cancer in Japan. METHODS: We deployed a 47-question survey on the use of SN biopsy for gynecological cancers to 216 gynecological oncology training facilities. The survey included information on the use of SN biopsy for uterine (cervical and endometrial) and vulvar cancers; details on the type, timing, and concentration of tracers used; surgical approach used for SN biopsy; method of biopsy and pathological examination; and facilities' experience with clinical research on SN biopsy. RESULTS: The response rate was 84% (181/216), with 40 facilities (22%) having experience in SN biopsy for gynecological cancers, 34 (85%) for uterine cancers, and 15 (37%) for vulvar cancers. Radioisotope, indocyanine green (ICG), and blue dyes were available for the detection of uterine cancers in 21 (52%), 25 (62%), and 19 (48%) facilities and for vulvar cancers in 9 (22%), 3 (7%), and 11 (27%) facilities, respectively. Thirty-four facilities (85%) used intraoperative frozen section procedure for diagnosis when possible, with 24 (71%) of these facilities using 2-mm specimen cuts. Diagnosis included pathological examination (85%), immunostaining (57%), and one-step nucleic acid amplification (5%). CONCLUSION: Increasing research evidence, providing insurance coverage for radioisotope tracers, and increasing the availability of training are expected to increase the use of SN biopsy in Japan.

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.

Genome-wide DNA methylation profile of early-onset endometrial cancer: its correlation with genetic aberrations and comparison with late-onset endometrial cancer.

The present study was performed to clarify the significance of DNA methylation alterations during endometrial carcinogenesis. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis and targeted sequencing of tumor-related genes were performed using the Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip and the Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel v2, respectively, for 31 samples of normal control endometrial tissue from patients without endometrial cancer and 81 samples of endometrial cancer tissue. Principal component analysis revealed that tumor samples had a DNA methylation profile distinct from that of control samples. Gene Ontology enrichment analysis revealed significant differences of DNA methylation at 1034 CpG sites between early-onset endometrioid endometrial cancer (EE) tissue (patients aged ≤40 years) and late-onset endometrioid endometrial cancer (LE) tissue, which were accumulated among 'transcriptional factors'. Mutations of the CTNNB1 gene or DNA methylation alterations of genes participating in Wnt signaling were frequent in EEs, whereas genetic and epigenetic alterations of fibroblast growth factor signaling genes were observed in LEs. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering grouped EE samples in Cluster EA (n = 22) and samples in Cluster EB (n = 12). Clinicopathologically less aggressive tumors tended to be accumulated in Cluster EB, and DNA methylation levels of 18 genes including HOXA9, HOXD10 and SOX11 were associated with differences in such aggressiveness between the two clusters. We identified 11 marker CpG sites that discriminated EB samples from EA samples with 100% sensitivity and specificity. These data indicate that genetically and epigenetically different pathways may participate in the development of EEs and LEs, and that DNA methylation profiling may help predict tumors that are less aggressive and amenable to fertility preservation treatment.

Analysis of the relapse patterns and risk factors of endometrial cancer following postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in a phase III randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was to analyze patterns and risk factors of relapse after postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for endometrial cancer. METHODS: Among patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial (JGOG2043) investigating the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for endometrial cancer at a high risk of progression, the recurrent patients were studied. Clinical information were collected, and correlation between relapse-related factors and clinicopathological factors were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 193 patients analyzed, 50% had local relapse and 63% had distant relapse. Local relapse involved regional lymph nodes in 30%, while distant relapse involved the abdominal cavity in 42%. Imaging was used to confirm relapse in 83%, and the median disease-free interval (DFI) was 11.5 months. Factors showing a significant correlation with DFI ≤12 months were residual tumor at surgery (p < 0.01), Grade 3 histology (p < 0.01), and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.03). In contrast, treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin showed a significant correlation with DFI >12 months (p = 0.04). The median post-relapse overall survival (RS) was 23.9 months. In multivariate analysis, CA125 ≥ 100 U/mL prior to relapse (p < 0.01), distant metastasis (p < 0.01), DFI ≤ 12 months (p = 0.02), and not performing para-aortic lymphadenectomy (p = 0.01) were independently related to poor RS. CONCLUSIONS: Relapse of endometrial cancer following adjuvant chemotherapy often occurs by 1 year after treatment, with common relapse sites of the abdominal cavity and regional lymph nodes. Among treatment-related factors, RS was correlated with DFI and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

ADAM9 is over-expressed in human ovarian clear cell carcinomas and suppresses cisplatin-induced cell death.

ADAMs (a disintegrin and metalloproteinases) are involved in various biological events such as cell adhesion, migration and invasion, membrane protein shedding and proteolysis. However, there have been no systematic studies on the expression of ADAMs in human ovarian carcinomas. We therefore examined mRNA expression of all the proteolytic ADAM species including ADAM8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 28, 30, 33 and ADAMDEC1 in human ovarian carcinomas, and found that prototype membrane-anchored ADAM9m, but not secreted isoform ADAM9s, is significantly over-expressed in carcinomas than in control non-neoplastic ovarian tissue. Among the histological subtypes of serous, endometrioid, mucinous and clear cell carcinomas, ADAM9m expression was highest in clear cell carcinomas. Immunohistochemistry showed that all the clear cell carcinoma samples displayed ADAM9m primarily on the carcinoma cell membrane. By immunoblotting, ADAM9m was detected mainly in an active form in the clear cell carcinoma tissues. When two clear cell carcinoma cell lines (RMG-I and TOV21G cells) with ADAM9m expression were treated with cisplatin, viability was significantly reduced and apoptosis increased in ADAM9m knockdown cells compared with mock transfectants. In addition, treatment of the cells with neutralizing anti-ADAM9m antibody significantly decreased viability compared with non-immune IgG, whereas ADAM9m over-expression significantly increased viability compared with mock transfectants. Our data show, to the best of our knowledge, for the first time, that ADAM9m is over-expressed in an activated form in human ovarian clear cell carcinomas, and suggest that ADAM9m plays a key role in cisplatin resistance.

Clinical utility of a self-administered questionnaire for assessment of hereditary gynecologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: A patient's medical history and familial cancer history are important information for assessing the risk of hereditary cancer. We have generated a self-administered questionnaire for patients with gynecologic cancer. This pilot study analyzed the usefulness of this questionnaire and the rates of patients that meet the Society of Gynecologic Oncology criteria in ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer patients. METHOD: Ovarian or endometrial cancer patients were recruited for this study. After informed consent was obtained, participants completed the questionnaire. Genetic risks were assessed from the data of each patient's questionnaire by Society of Gynecologic Oncology guideline. Clinical and pathological findings were compared between the genetic risk groups. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were identified with ovarian cancer and 56 patients with endometrial cancer eligible for this study. According to the Society of Gynecologic Oncology guideline, of the 105 ovarian cancer patients, 25 patients (23%) had a 20-25% risk and three patients (2.9%) had a 5-10% risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. A further 22 patients (21%) had a 5-10% risk of Lynch syndrome. Two patients (1.9%) met the Amsterdam criteria II. Of 56 endometrial cancer patients, 24 patients (42.9%) had a 5-10% risk of Lynch syndrome. The endometrial cancer patients with genetic risk of Lynch syndrome were younger (mean age: 47.79) at diagnosis compared to patients without a genetic risk of Lynch syndrome (mean age: 57.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we were able to show that the newly designed questionnaire is a useful tool for evaluating cancer family history along with Society of Gynecologic Oncology criteria or Amsterdam criteria II. When considering the risk of Lynch syndrome for a patient with ovarian cancer, it is important to collect a second and third relative's family history.

UGT1A1 polymorphism as a prognostic indicator of stage I ovarian clear cell carcinoma patients treated with irinotecan.

We investigated whether UGT1A1 polymorphisms are associated with the prognosis of ovarian cancer patients treated with irinotecan. UGT1A1 genotypes were analyzed in 11 stage I ovarian clear cell carcinoma patients who received irinotecan as first-line therapy. Progression-free survival, overall survival and adverse events were also assessed for each genotype. Three patients harbored UGT1A1*1/*6 while another three harbored UGT1A1*1/*28. Two patients with a wild-type genotype experienced recurrence and one died, whereas no recurrence or death was observed in patients with heterozygous genotypes. Adverse events tended to be more severe in patients with UGT1A1*6 and *28, although progression-free survival and overall survival rates tended to be better than in wild-type; the differences were not significant. We conclude that UGT1A1 polymorphisms have the potential to be a prognostic marker of irinotecan treatment.

A Comparison of Dye Versus Fluorescence Methods for Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Sentinel nodes (SNs) have been observed in several reports from Japan and overseas in cases with endometrial cancer; however, no consensus has been reached regarding the types of tracers or the method of their injection. A combination of the radioisotope (RI) and dye method is considered to be desirable. We assessed SN mapping using either dye or near-infrared fluorescence imaging to clarify a suitable method in cases of endometrial cancer. METHODS: Patients were enrolled from 92 patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer and having no extrauterine metastasis by the preoperative imaging between 2009 and 2014 at our institution. To identify the SNs, we performed 3 methods using either dye or fluorescence solutions in conjunction with a RI method. In the dye method, we injected indocyanine green in the uterine subserosa, visually identifying SNs as stained green. In the fluorescence method, a dilute indocyanine green solution (0.5 mg, fluorescence A or 0.25 mg, fluorescence B, each per 10 mL of solvent) was injected and the SN identified by the HyperEye Medical System. RESULTS: The SN detection rates were 100%, 100%, and 96% using dye and fluorescence A or B solution, respectively. Pelvic SNs were detected by the 3 methods in 98%, 100%, and 96% of cases and para-aortic SNs in 65%, 88%, and 74%, respectively. Fluorescence A solution was somewhat better than dye in detecting para-aortic SNs, although not significantly so (P = 0.07). The sensitivity and negative predictive values for detecting SNs with metastases with the dye method were 92% and 98% compared with 100% and 100%, respectively, for both fluorescence solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Although both dye and fluorescence methods performed well, no method perfectly identified para-aortic SNs. The concomitant use of the RI method is required to detect para-aortic SNs.