RESUMEN

This single-arm multi-institutional prospective study aimed to evaluate the 10-year outcomes of sublobar resection for small-sized ground-glass opacity-dominant lung cancer. Among 73 patients prospectively enrolled from 13 institutions between November 2006 and April 2012, 53 ground-glass opacity-dominant lung cancer patients underwent sublobar resection with wedge resection as the first choice. The inclusion criteria were maximum tumor size of 8-20 mm; ≥ 80% ground-glass opacity ratio on high-resolution computed tomography; lower 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose accumulation than the mediastinum; intraoperative pathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ; and no cancer cells on intraoperative cut margins. The primary endpoint was a 10-year disease-specific survival. The 53 eligible patients had a mean tumor size of 14 ± 3.4 mm and a mean ground-glass opacity ratio of 95.9 ± 7.2%. Wedge resection and segmentectomy were performed in 39 and 14 patients, respectively. The final pathological diagnoses were adenocarcinoma in situ in 47 patients (88.7%) and adenocarcinoma with mixed subtype in 6 patients (11.3%). The 10-year disease-specific survival and overall survival were 100% and 96.2%, respectively, during a median follow-up period of 120 months (range, 37-162 months). Ground-glass opacity-dominant small lung cancer is cured by sublobar resection when patients are strictly selected by the inclusion criteria of this study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic negatively affected the diagnosis and treatment of several cancer types. However, this pandemic's exact impact and extent on bone and soft tissue sarcomas need to be clarified. We aimed to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency declaration by the local government on consultation behavior and clinical stage at diagnosis of bone and soft tissue sarcoma. A total of 403 patients diagnosed with bone and soft tissue sarcoma who initially visited three sarcoma treatment hospitals between January 2018 and December 2021 were included. The monthly number of newly diagnosed soft tissue sarcoma patients was reduced by 25%, and the proportion of soft tissue patients with stage IV disease at diagnosis significantly increased by 9% during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the monthly number of new primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients significantly decreased by 43% during the state of emergency declaration. The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on soft tissue sarcoma patients' consultation behavior and increased the proportion of advanced-stage patients at initial diagnosis. An emergency declaration by the local government also negatively affected primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients' consultation behavior.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The perioperative treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) should control both local and microscopic systemic disease, because the survival of patients with NSCLC who underwent surgical resection alone has been dismal except in stage IA patients. One way to improve surgical outcome is the administration of chemotherapy before or after the surgical procedure. During the last two decades, many clinical studies have focused on developing optimal adjuvant or neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens that can be combined with surgical treatment and/or radiotherapy. Based on the results of those clinical studies, multimodality therapy has been considered to be an appropriate treatment approach for locally advanced NSCLC patients. When nodal involvement is discovered postoperatively, adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy has conferred an overall survival benefit. More recently, neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant use of immunotherapy adding to the cisplatin-based chemotherapy has been revealed to improve survival of the patients with locally advanced NSCLC in many large-scale clinical trials; although, optimal treatment strategies are still evolving.

RESUMEN

The Lung Cancer Surgical Study Group (LCSSG) of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) was organized in 1986 and initially included 26 collaborative institutions, which has increased to 52 institutions currently. JCOG-LCSSG includes thoracic surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiotherapists. In the early period, the JCOG-LCSSG mainly focused on combined modality therapies for lung cancer. Since the 2000s, the JCOG-LCSSG has investigated adequate modes of surgical resection for small-sized and peripheral non-small cell lung cancer and based on the radiological findings of whole tumor size and ground-glass opacity. Trials, such as JCOG0802, JCOG0804, and JCOG1211, have shown the appropriateness of sublobar resection, which has significantly influenced routine clinical practice. With the introduction of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, treatment strategies for lung cancer have changed significantly. Additionally, with the increasing aging population and medical costs, tailored medicine is strongly recommended to address medical issues. To ensure comprehensive treatment, strategies, including surgical and nonsurgical approaches, should be developed. Currently, the JCOG-LCSSG has conducted numerous clinical trials to adjust the diversity of lung cancer treatment strategies. This review highlights recent advancements in the surgical field, current status, and future direction of the JCOG-LCSSG.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Sublobar resection is considered a standard surgical procedure for early non-small cell lung cancer, although the survival of patients undergoing sublobar resection for clinical T1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to compare survival between segmentectomy and wedge resection for clinical T1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who had undergone curative surgery for cT1cN0M0 stage IA3 non-small cell lung cancer. The overall and recurrence-free survival rates of 91 patients who underwent segmentectomy or wedge resection were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-nine (42.9%) and 52 patients (57.1%) were included in the segmentectomy and wedge resection groups, respectively. The median length of follow-up was 6.0 years (95% confidence interval 4.2 - - years) (Kaplan-Meier estimate). The 5 year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the segmentectomy and wedge resection groups (67.7% vs 52.0%, P = 0.132). The 5 year recurrence-free survival rate was worse in the wedge resection group than in the segmentectomy group (66.6% vs 46.9%, P = 0.047). In univariable analysis, spread through air spaces (hazard ratio, 5.889; 95% confidence interval, 2.357-14.715; P < 0.001) was an important prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival in the wedge resection group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall survival of patients who underwent segmentectomy for clinical T1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer was not significantly different from that of patients who underwent wedge resection. However, patients with cT1cN0M0 non-small cell lung cancer who underwent wedge resection tended to have a worse recurrence-free survival prognosis than those who underwent segmentectomy.

RESUMEN

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to clarify the pathological features of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) that is undetectable on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Material and Methods: This single-center and retrospective study enrolled 33 men with prostate cancer (PC), encompassing 109 PC lesions, who underwent mpMRI before radical prostatectomy. Two radiologists independently assessed the mpMR images of all lesions and compared them with the pathological findings of PC. All PC lesions were marked on resected specimens using prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 and classified into magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detectable and MRI-undetectable PC lesions. Each lesion was classified into csPC and clinically insignificant PC. Pathological characteristics were compared between MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable csPC. Statistical analysis was performed to identify factors associated with MRI detectability. A logistic regression model was used to determine the factors associated with MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable csPC. Results: Among 109 PC lesions, MRI-detectable and MRI-undetectable PCs accounted for 31% (34/109) and 69% (75/109) of lesions, respectively. All MRI-detectable PCs were csPC. MRI-undetectable PCs included 30 cases of csPC (40%). The detectability of csPC on mpMRI was 53% (34/64). The MRI-undetectable csPC group had a shorter major diameter (10.6 ± 6.6 mm vs. 19.0 ± 6.9 mm, P < 0.001), shorter minor diameter (5.7 ± 2.9 mm vs. 10.7 ± 3.4 mm, P < 0.001), and lower percentage of lesions with Gleason pattern 5 (17% vs. 71%, P < 0.001). Shorter minor diameter (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; P = 0.04) and lower percentage of Gleason pattern 5 (OR, 24; P = 0.01) were independent predictors of MRI-undetectable csPC. Conclusion: The pathological features of MRI-undetectable csPC included shorter minor diameter and lower percentage of Gleason pattern 5. csPC with shorter minor diameter may not be detected on mpMRI. Some MRI-undetectable csPC lesions exhibited sufficient size and Gleason pattern 5, emphasizing the need for further understanding of pathological factors contributing to MRI detectability.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infection (SSI) is common in surgery for malignant musculoskeletal tumours, specifically those arising from the trunk. In this study, we investigated the risk factors for SSI after resection of musculoskeletal tumours of the trunk. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 125 patients (72 males, 53 females) with musculoskeletal tumours of the trunk in our hospital from 1 April 2008 to 31 August 2023. The incidence of SSI and its risk factors were investigated. RESULTS: SSI was observed in 26% (32/125), and the median time to SSI was 22 days. On multivariate analysis, the following were identified as risk factors for SSI: tumours arising caudal to Jacoby's line (hazard ratio [HR] 4.04; P = .0107), soft tissue reconstruction (HR 3.43; P = .0131), and low Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) (HR 0.96; P = .0304). Patients were classified into two risk categories based on GNRI scores: the risk group (GNRI ≤98) and no risk group (>98). The risk group showed a significantly lower overall noninfection survival rate (P = .023). CONCLUSION: Tumours arising caudal to Jacoby line, soft tissue reconstruction, and lower GNRI were risk factors for SSI. Preoperative and postoperative nutritional interventions should be considered to improve GNRI.

RESUMEN

This report addresses the management strategy and effectiveness of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) for treating local recurrence of thymoma, a condition often complicated by severe adhesions and limited data on re-operation following median sternotomy. We report about a 43-year-old man with thymoma recurrence 4 years after thymothymectomy via a median sternotomy. Follow-up computed tomography revealed a nodule adjacent to the left brachiocephalic vein, indicating possible thymoma recurrence. Thus, re-operation was performed using a left-sided approach via RATS with an artificial pneumothorax. The manipulation space was secured with an artificial pneumothorax, and multidirectional manipulation using RATS demonstrated good efficacy. Collectively, this case highlights the efficacy of RATS as a viable approach for managing thymoma recurrence in mediastinal locations, particularly when sternotomy is complicated by severe adhesions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Currently, it is difficult to predict the prognosis of myxoid liposarcoma (MLS) in biopsy specimens. In this study, we determined whether nuclear morphology may be used to predict the prognosis of MLS in primary biopsy specimens. Two pathologists evaluated nuclear morphology using the modified WHO/ISUP and Fuhrman grades. Survival analyses were performed by grouping nuclear high- and low-grades. We examined 53 MLS cases, which included 29 (54.7%) male and 24 (45.3%) female patients with a median age of 46 years (interquartile range, 37 - 60). In total, 7 (13.2%) and 16 (30.2%) cases were assigned to the high nuclear grade group based on the modified WHO/ISUP and Fuhrman gradings, respectively. Survival analyses revealed a significantly worse disease-free survival in the high-grade group (hazard ratio (HR), 7.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.67-21.1, p < 0.001 by the modified WHO/ISUP grading; HR, 4.45; 95% CI, 1.63-12.1, p = 0.001 by the modified Fuhrman grading). Moreover, the modified WHO/ISUP grade showed a significantly worse overall survival in the high-grade group (HR, 4.39; 95% CI, 1.04-18.6, p = 0.028), and the modified Fuhrman grade exhibited a similar, but not significant, trend. Our results indicate that nuclear morphology grading is a good predictor of patient prognosis at the time of biopsy in MLS. Even when cell density is sparse, treatment strategies should be carefully considered when individual tumor cells exhibit atypical nuclei.