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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

BACKGROUND: 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.

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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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.

Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a granulopoietic growth factor used in the treatment of neutropenia following chemotherapy, myeloablative treatment, or healthy donors preparing for allogeneic transplantation. Few hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) have been reported, and its true prevalence is unknown. We aimed to systematically characterize G-CSF-induced HRs while including a comprehensive list of adverse reactions. We reviewed articles published before January 2024 by searching in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases using a combination of the keywords listed, selected the ones needed, and extracted relevant data. The search resulted in 68 entries, 17 relevant to our study and 7 others found from manually searching bibliographic sources. A total of 40 cases of G-CSF-induced HR were described and classified as immediate (29) or delayed (11). Immediate ones were mostly caused by filgrastim (13 minimum), with at least 9 being grade 5 on the WAO anaphylaxis scale. Delayed reactions were mostly maculopapular exanthemas and allowed for the continuation of G-CSF. Reactions after first exposure frequently appeared and were present in at least 11 of the 40 cases. Only five desensitization protocols have been found concerning the topic at hand in the analyzed data. We believe this study brings to light the research interest in this topic that could benefit from further exploration, and propose regular updating to include the most recently published evidence.

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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

UNASSIGNED: Despite the developments of in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols, implantation failure remains a challenging problem, owing to the unbalance between the embryo, endometrium, and immune system interactions. Effective treatments are urgently required to improve successful implantation. Recently, many researchers have focused on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to regulate immune response and embryo-endometrium cross-talk. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of G-CSF therapy on implantation failure. The objective of this review was to further explore the effects of G-CSF according to administration dosage and timing among women who experienced at least one implantation failure.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of G-CSF on implantation failure up to July 21, 2023. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the heterogeneity of the studies with the I2 index was analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: We identified a total of 2031 studies and finally included 10 studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF administration improved the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), and live birth rate (LBR) in women with at least one implantation failure. Subgroup analyses showed that G-CSF treatment could exert good advantages in improving CPR [OR=2.49, 95%CI (1.56, 3.98), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.82, 95%CI (1.29, 6.15)], BPR [OR=3.30, 95%CI (1.42, 7.67)] and LBR [OR=3.16, 95%CI (1.61, 6.22), I2 = 0%] compared with the blank control group. However, compared with placebo controls, G-CSF showed beneficial effects on CPR [OR=1.71, 95%CI (1.04, 2.84), I2 = 38%] and IR [OR=2.01, 95%CI (1.29, 3.15), I2 = 24%], but not on LBR. In addition, >150μg of G-CSF treatment increased CPR [OR=2.22, 95%CI (1.47, 3.35), I2 = 0%], IR [OR=2.67, 95%CI (1.47, 4.82), I2 = 0%] and BPR [OR=2.02, 95%CI (1.17, 3.47), I2 = 22%], while ≤150μg of G-CSF treatment improved miscarriage rate (MR) [OR=0.14, 95%CI (0.05, 0.38), I2 = 0%] and LBR [OR=2.65, 95%CI (1.56, 4.51), I2 = 0%]. Moreover, G-CSF administration on the day of embryo transfer (ET) could increase CPR [OR=2.81, 95%CI (1.37, 5.75), I2 = 0%], but not on the day of ovum pick-up (OPU) or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) injection.
UNASSIGNED: G-CSF has a beneficial effect on pregnancy outcomes to some extent among women who experienced at least one implantation failure, and the administration dosage and timing influence the effect size.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447046.

Although both subcutaneous injection and intrauterine infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) have been reported to improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF), how to administer it is still no consensus. The study aimed to investigate which administration route is optimal. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) from inception to April 10, 2023, with language in both English and Chinese. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effectiveness of G-CSF to treat patients with RIF were included in this network meta-analysis (NMA). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in pregnancy outcomes (implantation rate, IR; clinical pregnancy rate, CPR; live birth rate, LBR; miscarriage rate, MR; ectopic pregnancy rate, EPR) were summarized by NMA with a random-effects model. A total of 1360 RIF patients from 14 RCTs were included in this NMA, with no publication bias and small sample effects. No direct evidence compared the effectiveness of different administration routes of G-CSF on IR, LBR and MR. Both subcutaneous injection and intrauterine infusion of G-CSF increased the IR (OR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.10-7.24; OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.50-3.07, respectively) and CPR (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 1.86-4.17; OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.30-2.33, respectively) in patients with RIF. According to SUCRA, subcutaneous injection is more likely to be the optimal medication administration route. However, more high-quality studies were also needed to support these, especially IR and LBR.

BACKGROUND: 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.

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.
BACKGROUND: Our study was registered in PROSPERO and the ID was CRD42023467188.