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).

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) affecting the urinary tract is recognized as one of the prevalent types of cancer, ranking fifth in terms of incidence. However, it is important to note that upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), in comparison to bladder cancer, is relatively uncommon and represents a minority of UC cases, accounting for ∼5% to 10%. It is worth emphasizing that as much as 60% of UTUC cases are invasive at the time of diagnosis, in contrast to 25% of bladder cancer cases. These statistics highlight the urgent need for well-designed, multidisciplinary strategies to guide optimal management for this vulnerable patient population, aiming to control treatment variability and minimize the risks associated with undertreatment and overtreatment. Methods: In this study, we present a comparative analysis of the contemporary guidelines on UTUC management from the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association/Society of Urologic Oncology (AUA/SUO) released in 2023. Our objective is to contrast the different guidelines and examine the evidence on which their recommendations are based. Results: By thoroughly reviewing the guidelines from both organizations, we observed substantial agreement on the management of UTUC. However, we also identified noticeable differences among these guidelines, leading to a wide range of recommendations. These disparities might stem from variations in clinical practices, regional preferences, and the availability of resources. It is crucial to acknowledge that both the EAU and AUA/SUO base their guidelines on the latest scientific evidence and expert consensus within their respective regions. Conclusions: These findings underscore the importance of ongoing collaboration, knowledge exchange, and harmonization of guidelines to improve the standard of care for UTUC globally. Future research should focus on identifying areas of consensus and bridging the gaps between different international guidelines to enhance the management outcomes for this challenging disease.

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based diagnoses and management of non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).
The Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center of Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) team conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 3rd, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through January 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through January 2022). The searches were updated August 2022. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (Table 1).[Table: see text]Results:This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding diagnosis and management of non-metastatic UTUC including risk stratification, surveillance and survivorship. Treatments discussed include kidney sparing management, surgical management, lymph node dissection (LND), neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
This standardized guideline seeks to improve clinicians\' ability to evaluate and treat patients with UTUC based on available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements for improving patient care. Updates will occur as the knowledge regarding disease biology, clinical behavior and new therapeutic options develop.

Radical cystectomy is the treatment of choice in localized muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. Nevertheless, relapses are frequent and systemic chemotherapy has been employed in order to reduce this risk. In addition, bladder preservation strategies are appealing. During the last decade, there has been a difficulty in conducting and completing large-scale trials in urothelial cancer. This has resulted in relatively few changes in the existing guidelines. Recent studies have created renewed interest in certain fields, such as the role of chemo-radiotherapy and management of unfit patients. In addition, application of certain guidelines has been limited in everyday practice. We conducted a systematic review of the existing guidelines and recent randomized trials not included in these guidelines, and developed a treatment algorithm, regarding non-surgical therapies for non-metastatic, muscle-invasive urothelial cancer based predominantly on patients\' fitness for the available therapeutic modalities.