Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Treatment in Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis is widely used in gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. The use of G-CSF in GI cancers has not previously been investigated systematically in a meta-analysis. Thus, we systematically reviewed the literature to describe the G-CSF use and potential influence on long-term oncological outcomes in GI cancers. Method: The literature search of this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The PRISMA-P guidelines were followed. Studies that reported data on patients with GI cancers undergoing oncological treatment with G-CSF prophylaxis were included. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE), specifically neutropenia grade III/IV. A time-to-event random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB) tool. Findings: In total, 2452 articles were screened for eligibility. Ultimately, 13 studies were included with a total patient number of 2673. The included studies indicated a positive association between OS and G-CSF prophylaxis (HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56–0.91, I2: 54%, low quality evidence). No significant relation between G-CSF use and PFS was found in the pooled analyses (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51–1.08, I2: 73%, moderate quality evidence). However, a positive effect of G-CSF use was found in the retrospective cohorts reporting data on PFS (HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32–0.77, I2: 0%). A marked drop in neutropenia grade III/IV rates was observed in patients treated with G-CSF (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28–0.77, I2: 72%, high quality evidence). Interpretation: G-CSF prophylaxis provides a reduction in neutropenia grade III/IV in patients with GI cancers (high level of certainty) and a favorable OS (low certainty), while PFS is unaffected (moderate certainty). Studies on PFS and G-CSF use are nonetheless limited.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".