Search

Bone metastasis (BM) is a common complication of cancer and contributes to a higher mortality rate in patients with cancer. The treatment of BM remains a significant challenge for oncologists worldwide. The colony‑stimulating factor (CSF) has an important effect on the metastasis of multiple cancers. In vitro studies have shown that CSF acts as a cytokine, promoting the colony formation of hematopoietic cells by activating granulocytes and macrophages. Other studies have shown that CSF not only promotes cancer aggressiveness but also correlates with the development and prognosis of various types of cancer. In recent years, the effect of CSF on BM has been primarily investigated using cellular and animal models, with limited clinical studies available. The present review discussed the composition and function of CSF, as well as its role in the progression of BM across various types of cancer. The mechanisms by which osteoclast‑ and osteoblast‑mediated BM occur are comprehensively described. In addition, the mechanisms of action of emerging therapeutic agents are explored for their potential clinical applications. However, further clinical studies are required to validate these findings.

Purpose: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy., Methods: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk., Results: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement., Conclusion: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated., Trial Registration: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens., Methods: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites., Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%)., Conclusion: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines., Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021., Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic., Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Introduction: The metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma clinical trial (MPACT) trial established gemcitabine (gem) and nab-paclitaxel (nab) as a standard treatment for pancreatic cancer utilizing granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to manage neutropenia. This was a challenge for jurisdictions that do not use granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in palliative settings. We developed dosage guidelines to dose modify gem and nab without granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. We undertook a retrospective review to determine the efficacy and safety of these dose adjustment guidelines in the real world., Methods: A multi-centered, retrospective chart review was performed on pancreatic patients between December 1, 2014, and August 21, 2018. Provincial electronic medical health records were reviewed. Using Log-rank statistics we determined the patient's progression-free survival and overall survival., Results: Of 248 patients, 209 met patient selection criteria. Patients were excluded if they were lost to follow-up, on gem alone prior to nab/gem combination therapy or did not receive nab or gem. Patients who received nab/gem as first-line therapy had a median progression-free survival of 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.1-7.4), and median overall survival of 11.1 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.8). Those who received gem/nab in the second line had a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.8-6.5), and median overall survival of 19.3 months (95% CI, 12.6-26.0)., Conclusions: The patient's progression-free survival and overall survival taking nab/gem using our dose modification algorithm were equivalent or superior to the MPACT trial's progression-free survival and overall survival. Gem/nab can be given by our dose modification scheme without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Background/aim: We evaluated the long-term outcome of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil as combination chemoradiotherapy (DCF-RT) for patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer (EC) in clinical settings., Patients and Methods: Twenty-eight patients with potentially resectable thoracic EC were included in this study. Chemotherapy consisted of intravenous docetaxel at 50 mg/m 2 (day 1), CDDP at 60 mg/m 2 (day 1), and 5-FU at 600 mg/m 2 (days 1 to 4), repeated every four weeks for two cycles along with radiotherapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions). Potentially resectable esophageal cancer was defined as clinical stage (cStage) I, II, III, and IV with supraclavicular lymph node metastasis [M1(Lym)]., Results: The overall complete response (CR) rate was 88.5%. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for cStage I, cStage II-III, and IV [M1(lym)] patients were 79.5%, 76.2%, and 50.0%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 acute toxicities were leucopenia (85.7%), neutropenia (78.5%), and febrile neutropenia (FN) (21.4%). The rate of any grade 3 or 4 late toxicity was 7.7%., Conclusion: DCF-RT demonstrated a satisfactory CR rate and OS with a higher rate of FN for potentially resectable thoracic EC patients. Prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor and antibiotics may be appropriate supportive care for patients undergoing DCF-RT., (Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: NK105 is a paclitaxel (PTX)-incorporating "core-shell-type" polymeric micellar nanoparticle formulation composed of block copolymers (polyethylene glycol and a polyamino acid). The efficacy and safety of NK105 and paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent breast cancer have never been compared at equivalent dose levels., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either NK105 or PTX in a 1:1 ratio. The study drug was administered on Day 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with 80 mg/m 2 . The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events., Results: A total of 123 patients (NK105, n=62; PTX, n=61) received one of the two drugs. There was no significant difference in ORR, the median PFS, or OS (NK105 group: 41.9%, 9.1, and 27.5 months, respectively; PTX group: 45.9%, 7.8, and 32.4 months, respectively). Neutropenia occurred more frequently in the NK105 group, but most patients did not require granulocyte-colony stimulating factor or dose-reduction. The median time to onset of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) in the NK105 group was significantly longer than that in the PTX group (p=0.001), and PSN (≥ grade 3) was not observed in the NK105 group., Conclusion: Weekly NK105 administration was well-tolerated. Efficacy was similar in both groups. The PSN profile was better in the NK105 group., Competing Interests: Y.K. reports having received honoraria from Chugai, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Taiho, and Nippon Kayaku; and financial support from Nippon Kayaku for attending meetings. T.S. reports having received grants from Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, Taiho, Chugai, Nippon Kayaku, AstraZeneca, NRG Oncology Japan, Sawai, JBCRG, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and West Japan Oncology Group; honoraria from Aska, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Ono, Taiho, Takeda, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, MiRTeL, and Meiji; and financial support from Nippon Kayaku for attending meetings. T.T. reports having received grants from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono, MSD, and Eisai, and honoraria from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Celltrion Healthcare. T.A. reports having received honoraria and support for attending meetings from Pfizer, Chugai, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Taiho, Celltrion, Nihon Medi-Physics, Kirin, Konica Minolta REALM, and Nippon Kayaku. T.Y. reports having received grants from Chugai, Taiho, Kyowa Kirin, and Nippon Kayaku; honoraria from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis Pharma, Taiho, AstraZeneca, Pfizer Japan, and Nippon Kayaku; and support for attending meetings from Nippon Kayaku. N.M. reports having received grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, Chugai, Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pfizer, and Nippon Kayaku; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Nippon Kayaku; and board memberships from the Japanese Breast Cancer Society and the Japan Breast Cancer Research Group Association. Y.K. reports having received honoraria and support for attending meetings from Nippon Kayaku. A. O. reports having received grants from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, Taiho, Chugai, Nippon Kayaku, Covance Japan, Maruho, Bayer, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Sawai, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, and West Japan Oncology Group; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai, Nippon Kayaku, Pfizer, Shionogi, and Eli Lilly; and financial support from Nippon Kayaku for attending meetings. J.W. reports having received grants and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly; honoraria from Chugai, Pfizer, Taiho, Novartis, Takeda, and Nippon Kayaku; and support for attending meetings from Nippon Kayaku. R.S. is an employee of Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2022 Kosaka et al.)

In simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) recipients, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major complication that has been associated with the use of tacrolimus (TAC)-based immunosuppression. As one of the immunosuppressive drug options, the use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) results in reduced rates of CMV infection in the field of solid organ transplantation. However, little is known about mTORi usage in pancreas transplantation. We report a case of recurrent CMV infection that was controlled by the introduction of mTORi (everolimus) in addition to a TAC-based immunosuppression regimen in SPK. A 52-year-old man underwent SPK. Graft duodenal perforation occurred on the 13th day of surgery, and graft duodenal resection was performed after long-term abscess drainage treatment. After graft duodenal resection, he was diagnosed with CMV viremia, and valganciclovir was started. However, because of recurrent febrile neutropenia caused by cytopenia as a side effect of valganciclovir, there was a repeated need for granulocyte-colony stimulating factor treatment. Immunosuppressive drug taper adjustment was attempted to control recurrent CMV viremia, and everolimus was introduced with the aim of reducing the dose of TAC and mycophenolate mofetil. This resulted in a continuously negative CMV antigenemia test and a stable general condition. Understanding the characteristics of various immunosuppressive agents and appropriately controlling and managing infectious diseases is crucial for the good postoperative management of patients with SPK., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Animal studies support RCT findings of improved liver function and short-term benefits using repurposed Granulocyte Colonic Stimulating Factor GCSF in adults with decompensated cirrhosis. We describe the protocol for phase 2 RCT of sequential Kasai-GCSF under an FDA-approved IND to test that GCSF improves early bile flow and post-Kasai biliary atresia BA clinical outcome. Immediate post-Kasai neonates, age 15-180 days, with biopsy-confirmed type 3 BA, without access to early liver transplantation, will be randomized 1:1 to standard of care SOC + GCSF at 10 ug/kg in 3 daily doses within 4 days of Kasai vs SOC + NO-GCSF (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0437391). They will be recruited from children's hospitals in Vietnam, Pakistan and one US center. The primary objective is to demonstrate that GCSF decreases the proportion of subjects with a 3-month post-Kasai serum Total Bilirubin ≥ 34 umol/L by 20%, (for a = 0.05, b = 0.80, i.e., calculated sample size of 218 subjects). The secondary objectives are to demonstrate that the frequency of post-Kasai cholangitis at 6-month and 24-month transplant-free survival are improved. The benefits are that GCSF is an affordable BA adjunct therapy, especially in developing countries, to improve biliary complications, enhance quality of liver and survival while diminishing costly liver transplantation.Clinical trial registration: A phase 1 for GCSF dose and safety determination under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03395028 was completed in 2019. The current Phase 2 trial was registered under NCT04373941., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Microglia are specialized dynamic immune cells in the central nervous system (CNS) that plays a crucial role in brain homeostasis and in disease states. Persistent neuroinflammation is considered a hallmark of many neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). Colony stimulating factor 1-receptor (CSF-1R) is predominantly expressed on microglia and its expression is significantly increased in neurodegenerative diseases. Cumulative findings have indicated that CSF-1R inhibitors can have beneficial effects in preclinical neurodegenerative disease models. Research using CSF-1R inhibitors has now been extended into non-human primates and humans. This review article summarizes the most recent advances using CSF-1R inhibitors in different neurodegenerative conditions including AD, PD, HD, ALS and MS. Potential challenges for translating these findings into clinical practice are presented., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose To investigate the efficacy of intravitreal injection of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for the treatment of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). Methods: Patients with acute NAION were enrolled in this prospective interventional case series. They received an intravitreal injection of 60 micrograms in 0.1 ml of G-CSF within 2 weeks of the onset of the disease. Visual acuity, visual field, intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal endothelial cell density, and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness were recorded before injections and 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and one year after the injections. Full-field electroretinography (ERG) was obtained at the baseline, 1 month, and 12 months post- injections. Results: Fourteen eyes of 14 patients entered the study. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved in the first month following injections ( p = .007), decreased subsequently, and the final BCVA showed no significant improvement ( p = .278) compared to the baseline measurements. A significant decrease in RNFL thickness was observed in all quadrants compared to the baseline measurements. Also, no improvement in the visual field parameters was observed. From the toxicity aspect, no significant changes in the corneal endothelial cell density, IOP, and ERG recordings were observed. Conclusion: Intravitreal injection of G-CSF seems to be safe. The effect may last for one month and then decline.

Purpose: Describe temporal changes in use of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor, and neutropenia-related hospitalization, in commercially insured patients., Methods: Using a large commercial administrative database, we identified annual cohorts of adult patients diagnosed with breast or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma and initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy during 2005-2017. We described yearly changes in proportions of myelosuppressive chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk category (high, intermediate, unclassified) and proportion of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor use and unadjusted incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization in the first cycle of myelosuppressive chemotherapy., Results: Annual cohorts included 4383-5888 eligible patients during 2005-2017. The proportion of eligible patients aged ≥ 65 years increased from 26.0% in 2005 to 58.2% in 2017. Myelosuppressive chemotherapy use with regimens with high risk for febrile neutropenia increased from 15.1% in 2005 to 31.0% in 2017; and regimens with intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia decreased from 63.7% to 48.1% in 2017. Prophylactic colony-stimulating factor use increased from 41.6% in 2005 to 54.3% in 2017. Crude incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization for all cancers increased from 2.0% to 3.1%, with a substantial increase in neutropenia-related hospitalization observed among non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients (2.8% to 8.5%) during 2005-2017., Conclusion: Among adult patients with breast and lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, use of regimens with high risk for febrile neutropenia increased, as did the use of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors after 2005. Incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization increased slightly, particularly among non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Further studies are required to understand this increasing trend of neutropenia-related hospitalization, changing patient-level risk factors, and febrile neutropenia management.

Stroke is a debilitating disease and has the ability to culminate in devastating clinical outcomes. Ischemic stroke followed by reperfusion entrains cerebral ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, which is a complex pathological process and is associated with serious clinical manifestations. Therefore, the development of a robust and effective poststroke therapy is crucial. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) and erythropoietin (EPO), originally discovered as hematopoietic growth factors, are versatile and have transcended beyond their traditional role of orchestrating the proliferation, differentiation, and survival of hematopoietic progenitors to one that fosters brain protection/neuroregeneration. The clinical indication regarding GCSF and EPO as an auspicious therapeutic strategy is conferred in a plethora of illnesses, including anemia and neutropenia. EPO and GCSF alleviate cerebral I/R injury through a multitude of mechanisms, involving antiapoptotic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, neurogenic, and angiogenic effects. Despite bolstering evidence from preclinical studies, the multiple brain protective modalities of GCSF and EPO failed to translate in clinical trials and thereby raises several questions. The present review comprehensively compiles and discusses key findings from in vitro, in vivo, and clinical data pertaining to the administration of EPO, GCSF, and other drugs, which alter levels of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) in the brain following cerebral I/R injury, and elaborates on the contributing factors, which led to the lost in translation of CSFs from bench to bedside. Any controversial findings are discussed to enable a clear overview of the role of EPO and GCSF as robust and effective candidates for poststroke therapy., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has posed several challenges to the hematology community to re-organize the medical care of patients with hematologic malignancies. Whereas the oncology societies favored a more or less conservative approach which considered the possibility of delaying treatment administration on a case-by-case basis, the hematology community guidelines were less stringent and recommended adequate individualized regimens. As countries are de-escalating the lockdown and the medical community is unable to foresee the end of the current outbreak will and whether the pandemic would eventually come back as a seasonal infection, there is interest in screening of patients with hematology malignancies with COVID-19 instead of limiting access to curative treatments. The rapidly accumulating knowledge about COVID-19 allows a better understanding of the diagnostic tools that may be potentially used in screening. Herein, we briefly review the pathophysiology of COVID-19, the rationale of screening of patients with hematologic malignancies, tools for screening, and available guidelines., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

Background: Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factor (PP-CSF) when risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) - based on chemotherapy and patient risk factors - is high. Whether and how PP-CSF use may have changed over time (e.g. due to guideline revisions, increasing use of myelosuppressive regimens, controversy regarding inappropriate CSF use), and whether there has been a concomitant change in the incidence of FN, is unknown., Methods: A retrospective cohort design and data from two US healthcare claims repositories were employed. The study population included patients who had non-metastatic cancer of the breast, colon/rectum, lung or ovaries, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN. For each patient, the first cycle of the first course was characterized in terms of PP-CSF use and FN episodes. Crude incidence proportions for PP-CSF and FN during the first cycle were estimated by calendar quarter (2010-2016); multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate quarter-specific adjusted mean probabilities of FN by PP-CSF use., Results: The study population totaled 142,730 patients with breast cancer (61%), colorectal cancer (14%), NHL (11%), ovarian cancer (10%) or lung cancer (5%). PP-CSF use increased from 52% in 1Q2010 to 58% in 4Q2016; pegfilgrastim was the most commonly used agent (>96% across quarters). PP-CSF administration on the same day as chemotherapy ranged from 8 to 11% until 1Q2015, and increased to 64% by 4Q2016. Adjusted incidence proportions for FN in the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3-3.0) to 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1-4.3) among those who did not receive PP-CSF, and was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5-2.7) across quarters among those who received PP-CSF., Conclusions: Although the use of PP-CSF is commonplace in current US clinical practice, underutilization in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN may still be an issue. Use of same-day PP-CSF increased markedly from the end of 2015, although this finding reflects (at least in part) increased uptake of pegfilgrastim delivered via an on-body injector as well as the recent change in clinical practice guidelines. Overall, patients receiving PP-CSF appear to have a lower risk of FN during the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Introduction: The rapid spread of severe infections mainly due to resistant pathogens, justifies the search for therapies aiming to restore immune functions severely compromised in patients with hematologic malignancies. Areas covered: The present review summarizes the current knowledge on the role of granulocyte transfusions and colony-stimulating factors as treatment strategy for hematologic patients with serious infectious complications. In addition, a survey among 21 hematologic centers, to evaluate the clinical practice for the use of G-CSF originator and biosimilars was performed. Expert commentary: Granulocyte transfusions with a target dose of at least 1.5-3 × 10 8 cells/kg, may be considered as an approach to bridge the gap between marrow suppression and recovery of granulocytes. G-CSF shortens the period of neutropenia, the hospitalization, the use of antibiotics and the rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) in adult and pediatric patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in adults with acute myeloid leukemia where these advantages nevertheless, did not translate into a clinical benefit. G-CSF biosimilar showed equivalence or non-inferiority to filgrastim. There are no data supporting the use of GM-CSF, eltrombopag and erythropoietin for preventing or treating infectious complications in patients with hematologic disorders.

Background: White blood cell colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN). Widespread use of CSFs that is not guideline-concordant has been reported. Among patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, the ability of evidence-based decision support tools to promote risk-appropriate reductions in CSF use without increased incidence of FN has not been examined. Methods: A retrospective cohort design and US commercial claims data were used. The impact of CSF decision support was analyzed among women with breast cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy from April 1, 2013, to March 30, 2015. The tool was implemented as part of a prior authorization process in 9 states starting July 1, 2014. Patients were assigned to intervention (ie, states where the decision support tool had been implemented) or nonintervention states (ie, 39 states where the tool had not been implemented). CSF use and subsequent incidence of FN were compared using difference-in-difference (DID) regressions adjusting for baseline differences in FN risk factors such as comorbidities and various infections. Results: The study sample of 7,224 patients (intervention states: pre-implementation, 1,991 and post-implementation, 2,010; nonintervention states: pre-implementation, 1,569 and post-implementation, 1,654) showed no significant difference in risk factors. Before and after implementation, a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with CSF use was observed in the intervention states (75% to 69%) compared with no significant change in the nonintervention (72% to 71%) states (DID, -5.4%; 95% CI, -6.0% to -4.7%; P =.006). No significance increase in FN incidence occurred in intervention (5.0% to 5.5%) and nonintervention (5.4% to 4.8%) states (DID, 0.2%; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.30; P =.78). Similar results were obtained in subgroups by comorbidities and in sensitivity analyses by claims-based FN definitions. Conclusions: CSF use decreased modestly after implementation of the decision support tool, with no observed changes in FN rates. Such tools can reduce practice variation to improve care standards., (Copyright © 2018 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Patterns of myeloid growth factor (GF) usage and febrile neutropenia (FN) were examined in patients >60 years of age with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (DLBCL) enrolled on CALGB 9793/ECOG-SWOG 4494, receiving initial therapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) or rituximab + CHOP (R-CHOP). Myeloid GFs were administered to 256/520 (49%) patients. Indications for use were: prevent dose reduction/dose delay (81%, 207/256); treat FN or non-febrile neutropenia (NFN) (19%, 48/256). One or more FN episodes occurred in 41% (212/520) of patients, with FN most often in cycle 1 (38% of episodes). In multivariate analysis, risk factors for FN included age >65 years (odds ratio (OR) = 2.6, 95% CI: [1.4, 4.9]) and anemia (hemoglobin <12 g/dl) (OR =2.2, 95% confidence intervals (CI): [1.4, 3.5]. Myeloid GF use was common in this older DLBCL population receiving CHOP-based therapy, as was FN, especially during cycle one. Risk factors predictive for FN should be used prospectively to identify patients for whom myeloid GFs are best utilized.

Colony stimulating factors (CSF) are widely prescribed to avoid febrile neutropenia (FN) among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, but studies show their use is often not consistent with practice guidelines. In addition, there is limited high quality evidence assessing benefits and harms of primary prophylactic-CSF (PP-CSF) in the setting of chemotherapy that poses an intermediate risk of FN. To address these issues, with funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program, SWOG is sponsoring a prospective, cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial of an automated order entry protocol for PP-CSF among patients with breast, lung and colorectal cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a nested randomized controlled trial of PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy. Primary outcomes include adherence to practice guidelines, overall rates of FN and rates of FN among persons receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy. The study, the first pragmatic trial in the National Cancer Institute's cancer cooperative clinical trials network, will provide critical evidence to inform physician and patient decision-making around PP-CSF use and practice policies regarding automated orders in cancer components.

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare autoinflammatory condition in which the alteration of neutrophil function and the innate immune response play key roles in its pathogenesis. Cases of PG have been reported in patients being treated with certain medications, which may help us to understand some of the possible pathways involved in the aetiology of PG. The aim of this review is to review the cases of PG triggered by certain drugs and try to thoroughly understand the pathogenesis of the disease. To accomplish this, a PubMed search was completed using the following words: pyoderma gangrenosum, neutrophilic dermatosis, pathophysiology, drug-induced pyoderma gangrenosum. In total, we found 43 cases of drug-induced PG. Most of them were caused by colony-stimulating factors and small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We propose that drugs induce PG through various mechanisms such as dysfunctional neutrophil migration and function, dysregulated inflammatory response, promotion of keratinocyte apoptosis and alteration of epigenetic mechanisms. PG is a rare condition with complex pathophysiology and drug-induced cases are even more scarce; this is the main limitation of this review. Understanding the possible mechanisms of drug-induced PG, via abnormal neutrophil migration and function, abnormal inflammation, keratinocyte apoptosis and alteration of epigenetic mechanisms would help to better understand the pathogenesis of PG and ultimately to optimize targeted therapy., (© 2016 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Opportunistic infections remain a major problem across a broad spectrum of immunocompromised haematological patient groups, with viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa all presenting significant challenges. Given the major difficulties in treating many of these infections with the currently available antimicrobial chemotherapeutic arsenal, and the rapid emergence of antimicrobial resistance amongst all of the microbial kingdoms, novel strategies that enable host control or elimination of infection are urgently required. Recently, major progress has been made in our understanding of host immunocompromise in the haematological patient. In addition, a wide range of novel immunomodulatory strategies for infectious diseases have been developed. Here we discuss the major and wide-ranging areas of progress that have been made for host-directed immunotherapies in the context of infectious diseases, with relevance to haematological immunocompromise., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are frequently overused for the primary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving chemotherapy., Methods: A retrospective cohort study design was used to analyze commercial claims data in adults with lung cancer initiated on chemotherapy from April 1, 2013, to March 30, 2015. The tool was implemented at oncology practices in phases across 14 US states. Patients were assigned to intervention and nonintervention states according to whether they resided in service areas where the tool had been implemented. Patients were followed up to 6 months after initiating chemotherapy. Difference in pre- and postimplementation CSF use and FN incidence rates were compared with the use of difference-in-differences (DID) models that were adjusted for baseline FN risk factors., Results: The study population of 3,467 patients (intervention states: pre, 707; post, 1,150; nonintervention states: pre, 636; post, 974) showed no significant differences in FN risk factors at baseline. In adjusted results before and after implementation, CSF use decreased from 48.4% to 35.6% in the intervention states versus 43.2% to 44.4% in the nonintervention states (DID, -8.7%; 95% CI, -14.65% to -2.67%; P ≤ .001). The rates of FN were consistent for both groups in both periods, with no statistical difference in trend for the intervention (2.8% to 4.3%) versus the nonintervention (3.1% to 5.1%) states (DID, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.10; P = .927)., Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that a decision support-enabled utilization management tool can improve risk-appropriate, guideline-adherent CSF use in patients with lung cancer.

Objectives: Hematopoietic growth factors (HGFs) are essential for successful completion of chemotherapy in lung cancer patients. However, because of their adverse effects, clinical guidelines recommend their use in only selective clinical scenarios. This study, for the first time, explores patient characteristics and temporal trends associated with HGF utilization among elderly lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data containing 80,940 patients, aged 65 years and older, diagnosed with stage I to IV lung cancer between 1992 and 2009, and who received chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions were used to examine the characteristics associated with 2 types of HGFs-colony stimulating factors (CSFs) and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs)., Results: Twenty-five percent of the patients received CSFs and 42% received ESAs. Temporal variations were most predictive of HGF utilization, with an increase from 2.6% in 1992 to 47.3% in 2009 for CSFs and 1.3% to 30.5% for ESAs. Higher chemotherapy-based risk profiles increased the odds of HGF receipt 2 to 3 times (P<0.0001). Even after controlling for relevant clinical characteristics, unexplained sociodemographic associations persisted, suggesting lack of compliance with HGF guidelines., Conclusions: There has been a significant increase in the use of HGFs over time. Although chemotherapy-based risk profiles were significant predictors of HGF receipt, the study results suggest possible lack of compliance with treatment guidelines, which should be investigated. Given the high cost of HGFs, future studies are also needed to determine cost-effectiveness of these drugs among lung cancer patients.

Objective: To evaluate the risk of thromboembolic and pulmonary toxicities associated with hematopoietic growth factor (HGF) use (i.e., erythropoietin-stimulating agent [ESA] and/or colony-stimulating factor [CSF]) in a community-dwelling cohort of elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: We studied 8,188 women, 65 years and older from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database, diagnosed from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009. Patients were categorized into five groups: no chemotherapy and no ESA/CSF (n = 2,616), chemotherapy but no ESA/CSF (n = 1,854), ESA only (n = 1,313), CSF only (n = 743), and ESA + CSF (n = 1,662). We reported the cumulative incidence of toxicities for 2, 6, and greater than 6 months, and the incidence density for the overall follow-up. Cox-proportional hazards regression was performed to determine risk of toxicities., Results: Of the 5,572 patients receiving chemotherapy, 66.7% (n = 3,718) received HGF supportive treatment, 29.8% received ESA + CSF, 23.6% received ESA only, and 13.3% received CSF only. Patients who received chemotherapy and also ESA + CSF had a 14.1% cumulative incidence of thromboembolic event (TEE) at 6 months of follow-up compared with 8.0% in those who received chemotherapy without growth factor and 3.2% in those with neither chemotherapy nor growth factor. Those with chemotherapy who received ESA + CSF had a significantly higher risk of TEE (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.47) as compared with patients with chemotherapy and no ESA/CSF, although patients aged 85 years and older may experience up to a five-fold increased risk. The risk of pulmonary toxicities did not significantly differ by HGF use., Conclusions: An increased risk of TEEs was observed in elderly patients with ovarian cancer who received ESA + CSF. The risk-benefit ratio for administering HGF should be carefully evaluated, especially among those 85 years and older., (Copyright © 2016 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The administration of myeloid growth factors is the only approved treatment for the prevention of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. However, their specific indications and contraindications and potential side effects limit their application to only a relatively small subset of patients at the highest risk for complications, such as infection., Areas Covered: A computerized systematic literature search was performed through Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, the Pharmaprojects database and the clinicaltrials.gov website. The shortcomings of the existing treatment approach are reviewed, along with a synopsis of the characteristics of novel agents that protect bone marrow progenitors from the cytotoxic effects of antineoplastic treatment that may be used in the future as a stand-alone preventive strategy or as an adjunct to growth factors., Expert Opinion: There is an abundance of agents undergoing evaluation for the prevention of treatment-induced neutropenia. The appropriate selection of patients, the optimization of the use of existing agents and the increasing competition from biosimilars which likely ensure future decreases in healthcare costs are essential for growth factors to retain their dominant position in this setting.

The purpose of this study was to use the most recent national data for a large cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer to evaluate temporal trend of receiving hematopoietic growth factors from 2000 to 2009 and to examine significant factors associated with increasing trends and geographic variations. We identified 26,130 women aged 65-89 years who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received chemotherapy in 2000-2009 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) were identified if there was a claim from the following procedure codes: filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were identified if there was a claim from the following procedure codes: epoetin or darbepoetin. Overall, 51.7% of patients with breast cancer received CSFs, which increased from 21.7% in 2000 to 63.2% in 2009. The percentage of patients receiving pegfilgrastim increased from 2.7% in 2000 to 19.5% in 2003 and then continuously to 49.7% in 2009. The overall percentage of patients receiving ESAs was 39.3%, which increased from 26.4% in 2000 to 60.8% in 2006, and then decreased significantly from 40.7% in 2007 to 12.9% in 2009. The receipt of both CSFs and ESAs differed significantly across different geographic areas. The receipt of CSFs continued to increase from 2000 to 2009, and pegfilgrastim started to replace filgrastim since 2003. The receipt of ESAs increased until 2006 and then declined substantially due to the black box warning. There were substantial geographic variations in the use of these hematopoietic growth factors.

Appropriate use of myeloid growth factors may reduce the risk of neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recently updated American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Guidelines on the Use of the White Blood Cell Growth Factors recommends routine prophylaxis with these agents starting in the first cycle when the risk of FN is 20% or greater. However, the risks for neutropenic complications and the risk of serious adverse consequences from FN vary considerably with different chemotherapy regimens as well as other disease-, treatment-, and patient-specific risk factors. Considerably more information is now available on the major risk factors for FN. Multivariable risk models combining factors look promising but require further validation. Most clinical studies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis assessed relative risk (RR) of FN but were not powered to evaluate the effect of prophylaxis on disease-free or overall survival. Accumulating evidence suggests, however, that the appropriate use of these agents in selected patients may improve both short-term and long-term survival by reducing the immediate risk of mortality accompanying patients with high-risk disease developing FN as well as improving disease-free and overall survival by enabling the delivery of full dose intensity chemotherapy and reducing the risk of disease recurrence in patients treated with curative intent. Further studies to evaluate risk factors and models for FN are needed to guide clinical and shared decision making for the optimal personalized use of these agents and offer patients at increased risk the best chance of long-term disease control.

We present the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) white cell growth factors, or colony-stimulating factor (CSF), guidelines, updated from 2006. One new indication has been added-dose-intense chemotherapy for bladder cancer-to accompany the existing use for dose-dense breast cancer chemotherapy. Colony-stimulating factors remain appropriate for any regimen where the risk of febrile neutropenia is about 20% per cycle and dose reduction is not appropriate. Based on new evidence from multiple trials, CSF use is no longer indicated in treatment of lymphoma unless there are special risk factors. The United States accounts for 78% of the sales of CSF. The panel approved the use of all biosimilars, but the cost savings will be small as the price is about 80% of the branded CSFs. More biosimilars at lower cost are awaited. Methods to reduce use without harm to patients, by requiring justification according to accepted guidelines, are ongoing.

Purpose: To determine the relationship between the receipt of colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and the risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), stroke, heart disease, and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in patients with colorectal cancer., Methods: We studied 80,925 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer at age ≥ 65 years in 1992-2009 from the nationwide 16 areas of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Cumulative incidence and the time to events Cox hazard regressions were used to explore the risks of outcomes in association with the receipt of CSFs and ESAs., Results: Patients who received chemotherapy (CT) with both CSF and ESA were 58% more likely to develop VTE than those who received CT without CSF and ESA (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-1.76). The risk of stroke appeared to be not associated with the use of CSF and ESA, whereas the risk of heart disease was only significantly elevated in those patients who did not receive CT but received ESA. The risk of acute myeloid leukemia or MDS was significantly increased 4- to 9-fold in patients who received ESA, regardless of receipt of CT or CSF., Conclusion: The use of ESAs was significantly associated with a substantially increased risk of MDS in patients with colorectal cancer. The use of CSFs and ESAs was also significantly associated with a moderately increased risk of VTE and a slightly elevated risk of heart disease., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Choosing Wisely (CW) measures aim to reduce the use of interventions that lack evidence of benefit in cancer care. The study presented here characterized adherence to the 2012 ASCO/ABIM CW recommendations by linking health plan claims data with a regional cancer registry and sought to identify areas for research interventions to improve adherence., Methods: SEER records for patients diagnosed with cancer in Western Washington State between 2007 and 2014 were linked with enrollment and claims from a large regional commercial insurance plan. Using claims and SEER records, algorithms were developed to characterize adherence to each CW measure. In addition, we calculated differences in total reimbursements and procedure-specific reimbursements for patients receiving adherent and nonadherent care., Results: A total of 22,359 unique individuals with cancer were linked with insurance enrollment records and met basic eligibility criteria. Overall adherence varied from 53% (breast surveillance) to 78% (breast staging). Within each measure, adherence varied substantially by stage at diagnosis and by cancer site in situations in which the CW measure affected multiple types of cancer. The difference in reimbursements between adherent and nonadherent populations across all five measures was approximately $29 million., Conclusion: Adherence to the ASCO/ABIM CW measures varies widely, as does the cost implication of nonadherence. A structured approach to evaluating adherence and cost impact is needed before developing programs aimed at improving adherence to the ASCO/ABIM CW measures., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Treatment-associated neutropenia continues to represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. It often leads to fever and infection, prompting hospitalization and occasionally resulting in serious morbidity, and even mortality, despite modern broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment and supportive care. Neutropenia and its complications may also lead to chemotherapy dose reductions, treatment delays, or early treatment termination, compromising disease control and the potential for cure. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology recommend administration of primary prophylaxis with a myeloid growth factor in patients receiving regimens associated with a high risk for febrile neutropenia, and consideration of prophylaxis in patients receiving lower-risk regimens who have other risk factors that might place them at higher risk for febrile neutropenia. Although these agents have been shown to be effective and safe in numerous randomized controlled trials, they are expensive and contribute significantly to increasing health care costs. Regulatory agencies and guideline organizations do not currently address the issue of cost. However, with the relentless increase in health care use and current efforts to reform health care, it has become increasingly important to assess both the cost and the net benefit of interventions related to an episode of care in order to compare the overall value of therapeutic options. This article defines and discusses the intersection of quality, costs, and value in the context of prophylactic myeloid growth factor use in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Aims: To examine the impact of research design on results in two published comparative effectiveness studies., Methods: Guidelines for comparative effectiveness research have recommended incorporating disease process in study design. Based on the recommendations, we develop a checklist of considerations and apply the checklist in review of two published studies on comparative effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors. Both studies used similar administrative claims data, but different methods, which resulted in directionally different estimates., Results: Major design differences between the two studies include: whether the timing of intervention in disease process was identified and whether study cohort and outcome assessment period were defined based on this temporal relationship., Conclusion: Disease process and timing of intervention should be incorporated into the design of comparative effectiveness studies.

Background: Febrile neutropenia is a frequent adverse event experienced by people with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, and is a potentially life-threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), such as granulocyte-CSF (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cell lines in the bone marrow. Clinical trials have addressed the question of whether the addition of a CSF to antibiotics could improve outcomes in individuals diagnosed with febrile neutropenia. However, the results of these trials are conflicting., Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding G-CSF or GM-CSF to standard treatment (antibiotics) when treating chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in individuals diagnosed with cancer., Search Methods: We conducted the search in March 2014 and covered the major electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI. We contacted experts in hematology and oncology and also scanned the citations from the relevant articles., Selection Criteria: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adults and children., Data Collection and Analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed meta-analysis of the selected studies using Review Manager 5 software., Main Results: Fourteen RCTs (15 comparisons) including a total of 1553 participants addressing the role of CSF plus antibiotics in febrile neutropenia were included. Overall mortality was not improved by the use of CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.16) P = 0.19; 13 RCTs; 1335 participants; low quality evidence). A similar finding was seen for infection-related mortality (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.20) P = 0.23; 10 RCTs; 897 participants; low quality evidence). Individuals who received CSF plus antibiotics were less likely to be hospitalized for more than 10 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.95) P = 0.03; 8 RCTs; 1221 participants; low quality evidence) and had more number of participants with a more faster neutrophil recovery (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.81) P = 0.004; 5 RCTs; 794 participants; moderate quality evidence) than those treated with antibiotics alone. Similarly, participants receiving CSF plus antibiotics had shorter duration of neutropenia (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.70 (95% CI -2.65 to -0.76) P = 0.0004; 9 RCTs; 1135 participants; moderate quality evidence), faster recovery from fever (SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.09) P value = 0.02; 9 RCTs; 966 participants; moderate quality evidence) and shorter duration of antibiotics use (SMD -1.50 (95% CI -2.83 to -0.18) P = 0.03; 3 RCTs; 457 participants; low quality evidence) compared with participants receiving antibiotics alone. We found no significant difference in the incidence of deep venous thromboembolism (RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.72 to 3.93) P = 0.23; 4 RCTs; 389 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. We found higher incidence of bone or joint pain or flu-like symptoms (RR 1.59 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.42) P = 0.03; 6 RCTs; 622 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. Overall, the methodological quality of studies was moderate to low across different outcomes. The main reasons to downgrade the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results., Authors' Conclusions: The use of a CSF plus antibiotics in individuals with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia had no effect on overall mortality, but reduced the amount of time participants spent in hospital and improved their ability to achieve neutrophil recovery. It was not clear whether CSF plus antibiotics had an effect on infection-related mortality. Participants receiving CSFs had shorter duration of neutropenia, faster recovery from fever and shorter duration of antibiotics use.

None of previous studies has provided the detailed pattern, variation, and temporal trend in the use of growth factors for patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of the study was to examine the temporal trend and predictors of receiving hematopoietic growth factors in a large nationwide and population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer in the USA from 1992 to 2009. We studied 50,768 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer at age 65-89 years in 1992-2009 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results areas who received chemotherapy as part of initial therapy within 12 months of diagnosis according to Medicare data. Growth factors were identified for colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) and for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Overall, 16.3% received CSFs and 26.5% received ESAs with an increase from 0.8 and 1.5% in 1992 to 29.4 and 14.1% in 2009, respectively. Compared with patients diagnosed in 1992-1994, those diagnosed in 1995-1997 were >2 times more likely to receive CSFs and ESAs, whereas patients diagnosed recently in 2007-2009 were >22 times and 4 times to receive CSFs and ESAs, respectively. Gender, marital status, comorbidity scores, geographic area, year of diagnosis, tumor stage, number of lymph nodes, and risk profile for febrile neutropenia were statistically significant predictors of using CSFs and ESAs. There were substantial temporal and geographic variations in the use of hematopoietic growth factors in patients with colorectal cancer following chemotherapy. More studies would be needed to explore the effectiveness of hematopoietic growth factors in preventing and treating neutropenia, anemia, and infection.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) can occur at any time during the course of a malignancy, especially hematologic malignancies, from diagnosis to end-stage disease. The majority of FN episodes are typically confined to the period of initial diagnosis and active treatment. Because of suppressed inflammatory responses, fever is often the sole sign of infection. As FN is a true medical emergency, prompt identification of and intervention in FN can prolong survival and improve quality of life. This article reviews FN in the setting of hematologic malignancies, specifically myelodysplastic syndromes and acute leukemias, providing an overview of the definition of fever and neutropenia, diagnostic approach, categories of risk/risk assessment, management in patients at low and high risk, and prophylaxis of infections.

The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are the master regulators of granulocyte and macrophage populations. There are four different aspects of the connection between the CSFs and cancer: (a) the CSFs can accelerate the regeneration of protective white cells damaged by chemotherapy; (b) the CSFs can mobilize stem cells to the peripheral blood in convenient numbers for transplantation; (c) the CSFs can enhance anticancer immune responses and (d) the CSFs are potentially involved in the genesis of the myeloid leukemias.

Febrile neutropenia, a common side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer, can result in prolonged hospitalization and broad-spectrum antibiotic use, often prompting treatment delays or dose reductions of drug regimens. Prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors (mainly the colony-stimulating factors filgrastim and pegfilgrastim) in patients of heightened risk can reduce the severity and duration of febrile neutropenia. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Myeloid Growth Factors provide recommendations on the use of these agents mainly in the oncology setting based on clinical evidence and expert consensus. This version includes revisions surrounding the issue of timing of pegfilgrastim administration. It also includes new sections on tbo-filgrastim, a recently approved agent that is biologically similar to filgrastim, and the role of myeloid growth factors in the hematopoietic cell transplant setting.

Background: Colony stimulating factors (CSFs), also called haematopoietic growth factors, regulate bone marrow production of circulating red and white cells, and platelets. Some CSFs also mobilise the release of bone marrow stem cells into the circulation. CSFs have been shown to be neuroprotective in experimental stroke., Objectives: To assess (1) the safety and efficacy of CSFs in people with acute or subacute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and (2) the effect of CSFs on circulating stem and blood cell counts., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched September 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1985 to September 2012), EMBASE (1985 to September 2012) and Science Citation Index (1985 to September 2012). In an attempt to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we contacted manufacturers and principal investigators of trials (last contacted April 2012). We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people with acute or subacute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. CSFs included stem cell factor (SCF), erythropoietin (EPO), granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), macrophage-colony stimulating factor (M-CSF, CSF-1), thrombopoietin (TPO), or analogues of these. The primary outcome was functional outcome at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes included safety at the end of treatment, death at the end of follow-up, infarct volume and haematology measures., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors (TE and NS) independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: We included a total of 11 studies involving 1275 participants. In three trials (n = 782), EPO therapy was associated with a significant increase in death by the end of the trial (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 3.3, P = 0.009) and a non-significant increase in serious adverse events. EPO significantly increased the red cell count with no effect on platelet or white cell count, or infarct volume. Two small trials of carbamylated EPO have been completed but have yet to be reported. We included eight small trials (n = 548) of G-CSF. G-CSF was associated with a non-significant reduction in early impairment (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -1.82 to 1.01, P = 0.58) but had no effect on functional outcome at the end of the trial. G-CSF significantly elevated the white cell count and the CD34+ cell count, but had no effect on infarct volume. Further trials of G-CSF are ongoing., Authors' Conclusions: There are significant safety concerns regarding EPO therapy for stroke. It is too early to know whether other CSFs improve functional outcome.

This review focuses on contributions to cytokine biology made by Australians in Australia. It is clearly biased by my own experiences and selective recollections especially related to the colony-stimulating factors in which Australian involvement has been pre-eminent from discovery to clinical use. Nevertheless Australian scientists have also made profound contributions to other areas of cytokine and growth factor biology (including interferons, inflammatory cytokines, chemokines and epidermal, insulin-like and vascular endothelial growth factors) that are briefly described in this review as well as other chapters in this volume., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Healthcare claims databases have been used in several studies to characterize the risk and burden of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors against FN. The accuracy of methods previously used to identify FN in such databases has not been formally evaluated., Methods: Data comprised linked electronic medical records from Geisinger Health System and healthcare claims data from Geisinger Health Plan. Subjects were classified into subgroups based on whether or not they were hospitalized for FN per the presumptive "gold standard" (ANC <1.0×10(9)/L, and body temperature ≥38.3°C or receipt of antibiotics) and claims-based definition (diagnosis codes for neutropenia, fever, and/or infection). Accuracy was evaluated principally based on positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity., Results: Among 357 study subjects, 82 (23%) met the gold standard for hospitalized FN. For the claims-based definition including diagnosis codes for neutropenia plus fever in any position (n=28), PPV was 100% and sensitivity was 34% (95% CI: 24-45). For the definition including neutropenia in the primary position (n=54), PPV was 87% (78-95) and sensitivity was 57% (46-68). For the definition including neutropenia in any position (n=71), PPV was 77% (68-87) and sensitivity was 67% (56-77)., Conclusions: Patients hospitalized for chemotherapy-induced FN can be identified in healthcare claims databases--with an acceptable level of mis-classification--using diagnosis codes for neutropenia, or neutropenia plus fever.

Fever occurs at high rates in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and is considered an oncologic emergency. Numerous algorithms have been developed to guide treatment decisions. Prompt care and the initiation of empiric antibiotic therapy are critically important universal aspects of these treatment-decision schemata. Fever may be the only sign of infection, as in patients with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, the immune response is attenuated. In the majority of cases, no etiology for neutropenic fever is uncovered; nonetheless, a thorough workup is essential. The workup allows practitioners to risk stratify patients as being at low or high risk for infectious complications so that appropriate care can be administered. Although it is important to note that there are management algorithms to follow, every patient may present and respond differently. We generally start with broad-spectrum monotherapy for Gram-negative bacteria and then consider whether Gram-positive or antifungal coverage is necessary based on the clinical picture, including factors such as duration and degree of neutropenia. It is important for all practitioners to understand how to care for patients with neutropenic fever because it is a common and treatable condition.

Neutropenia induced by chemotherapy (CT) is an infection risk factor associated to greater morbidity/mortality and dose-limiting toxicity that on many occasions requires a reduction of the dose of cytostatics or a delay in the administration of treatment. This may have a negative effect on the patient's quality of life and even diminish the efficacy of the treatment, especially when the intention is to cure or prolong survival. Management of treatment or prophylaxis of grade 3-4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with myeloid growth factors (CSF) varies very much in clinical practice, both in the time of starting treatment and the types of patients it is given to. The need to generalise and facilitate practice based on clinical evidence has led the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) to prepare clinical practice guidelines on the use of myeloid growth factors.

As nurses we all know the importance of good health education to achieve the highest level of autonomy in our patients. In the Medical Day Unit of Palamós Hospital we treat cancer patients who need CSF's (Colony Stimulating Factors) medication. We thought it would be appropriate, therefore, to draw up an information leaflet on self-administration of CSF's. These kind of patients receive a lot of information through the different media but, unfortunately, it can get distorted, unclear, and often, not at all lawful. Our goal is that the patient or, in his absence, the main career can improve the self-administration of the drug. After several tests we have opted for a visual leaflet instead of a written one because we believe that "a picture is worth a thousand words".

The development of an infection involves interplay between the host's immune system and the virulence of the infecting microorganism. The traditional treatment of an infection involves antimicrobial chemotherapy to kill the organism. The use of immunotherapies in infections includes treatment options that modulate the immune response and can lead to control of infections. These therapies are expected to become more important therapeutic options with the increase in infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms and the increasing number of immunocompromised patients., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To determine the impact of primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use on febrile neutropenia in a large patient population receiving contemporary chemotherapy regimens to treat breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Design: Retrospective claims analysis., Data Sources: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Puget Sound cancer registry and insurance claims records., Patients: A total of 2728 patients aged 25 years or older who received a diagnosis of breast cancer (998 patients), colorectal cancer (688 patients), or NSCLC (1042 patients) between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2005, and received chemotherapy., Measurements and Main Results: Initial chemotherapy regimen, CSF use (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim), and febrile neutropenia events were evaluated after the first chemotherapy administration. Subsequently, febrile neutropenia rates in patients receiving primary prophylactic CSF were compared with febrile neutropenia rates in patients receiving CSF in settings other than primary prophylaxis or not at all. The impact of primary prophylactic CSF could not be assessed for patients with colorectal cancer or NSCLC because only 1 and 18 febrile neutropenia events, respectively, occurred in those receiving primary prophylactic CSF. Of the 998 patients with breast cancer, 72 (7.2%) experienced febrile neutropenia, 28 of whom received primary prophylactic CSF. In the patients with breast cancer, we observed that primary prophylactic CSF use was associated with reduced febrile neutropenia rates; however, the analysis may have been confounded by unmeasured factors associated with febrile neutropenia., Conclusion: The impact of primary prophylactic CSFs on febrile neutropenia rates could not be demonstrated. Given the substantive cost of CSFs to pharmacy budgets, there are numerous opportunities for pharmacists to optimize CSF use. Research studies are needed to evaluate if guideline-directed prescribing of primary prophylactic CSFs can improve clinical outcomes., (© 2012 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)