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: 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.

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: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

BACKGROUND: 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.

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).

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) is a common hematological adverse events and dose-limiting toxicities of chemotherapy. CIN may lead to dose reduction and delay of chemotherapeutic agents, febrile neutropenia and severe infection, which results in increased treatment cost, reduced efficacy of chemotherapy, and even life-threatening morbidities. Assessment of risk of CIN, early detection of FN and infection, and proper prevention and treatment play a crucial role in reducing the occurrence of CIN-related morbidities, improving patient treatment safety and anticancer efficacy. Based on evidence and expert opinion, the expert committee of Chinese Anti-Cancer Association issued \"the consensus on diagnosis and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in China (2023 edition)\", which is an update version of the 2019 edition, aiming to provide reference for the diagnosis and treatment of CIN for Chinese oncologists.
肿瘤化疗导致的中性粒细胞减少是化疗常见的血液学不良事件和剂量限制性不良反应。化疗导致的中性粒细胞减少有可能导致化学药物减量或延迟、粒细胞减少性发热和严重的感染，从而增加治疗费用、降低化疗效果、甚至会导致危及生命的并发症。因此，正确评估患者发生中性粒细胞减少的风险，早期识别粒细胞减少性发热和感染并进行合理的预防和治疗，对减少化疗所致中性粒细胞减少相关并发症、提高患者治疗安全及抗肿瘤化学治疗的疗效等方面具有重要意义。基于循证医学证据和专家共识，中国抗癌协会肿瘤临床化疗专业委员会和中国抗癌协会肿瘤支持治疗专业委员会制定了《中国肿瘤化疗导致的中性粒细胞减少诊治专家共识(2023版)》，在《肿瘤化疗导致的中性粒细胞减少的诊治专家共识(2019版)》的基础上进行了更新，旨在为我国肿瘤学医师提供关于化疗导致的中性粒细胞减少诊断和治疗有效的建议与参考。.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the difference in appropriateness of antimicrobial selection in pediatric patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) after implementation of an institutional guideline, a dedicated pediatric emergency medicine (EM) pharmacist, and an electronic order set.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that included febrile patients aged younger than 18 years who were at risk of neutropenia, as defined by our institutional algorithm. Charts were evaluated for inclusion by searching for patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) between February 2018 and January 2022 who had International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes for patients at risk of FN. Three independent groups were compared before, during, and after interventions. A historical control group (group 1), postdedicated EM pharmacist and institutional guideline cohort (group 2), and postdedicated EM pharmacist, institutional guideline, and electronic order set cohort (group 3) were compared. Secondary outcomes included time from registration in the ED to administration of the first dose of empiric antimicrobials, days to defervescence, pediatric intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay.
RESULTS: Seventy-eight charts were reviewed for inclusion. Among those included (n = 38), there was an increase in appropriate use of antimicrobials from 71% to 92% to 100% ( P = 0.1534) between group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively. In addition, the interventions in this study lead to an overall decrease in the median time from registration to first dose of antibiotics from 142 minutes to 72 minutes ( P = 0.1370).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the positive impact a pediatric EM pharmacist along with an institutional guideline and an electronic order set have on appropriate antimicrobial selection in pediatric FN patients. Institutions should consider multipronged approaches to improve the selection and time to administration of appropriate empiric antimicrobials in the ED.

Our aim was to identify national consensus criteria for the management of children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), for evidence-based step-down treatment approaches for patients classified at low risk of severe infection. In 2018, a five-section, 38-item survey was e-mailed to all pediatric hematology and oncology units in France (n = 30). The five sections contained statements on possible consensus criteria for the (i) definition of FN, (ii) initial management of children with FN, (iii) conditions required for initiating step-down therapy in low-risk patients, (iv) management strategy for low-risk patients, and (v) antibiotic treatment on discharge. Consensus was defined by respondents\' combined answers (somewhat agree and strongly agree) at 75% or more. Sixty-five physicians (participation rate: 58%), all specialists in pediatric onco-hematology, from 18 centers completed the questionnaire. A consensus was reached on 22 of the 38 statements, including the definition of FN, the criteria for step-down therapy in low-risk children, and the initial care of these patients. There was no consensus on the type and duration of antibiotic therapy on discharge. In conclusion, a consensus has been reached on the criteria for initiating evidence-based step-down treatment of children with FN and a low risk of severe infection but not for the step-down antimicrobial regimen.

Febrile neutropenia is one of the main infectious complications experienced by paediatric patients with blood or solid tumours, which, despite the advances in diagnosis and treatment, are still associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. These patients have several risk factors for infection, chief of which are chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, the disruption of cutaneous and mucosal barriers and the use of intravascular devices. Early diagnosis and treatment of febrile neutropenia episodes based on the patient\'s characteristics is essential in patients with blood and solid tumours to improve their outcomes. Therefore, it is important to develop protocols in order to optimise and standardise its management. In addition, the rational use of antibiotics, with careful adjustment of the duration of treatment and antimicrobial spectrum, is crucial to address the increase in antimicrobial drug resistance. The aim of this document, developed jointly by the Spanish Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and the Spanish Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, is to provide consensus recommendations for the management of febrile neutropenia in paediatric oncology and haematology patients, including the initial evaluation, the stepwise approach to its treatment, supportive care and invasive fungal infection, which each facility then needs to adapt to the characteristics of its patients and local epidemiological trends.