1.Use of colony-stimulating factor in patients with ovarian cancer receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin in Japan.
Kenichi HARANO ; Akihiro HIRAKAWA ; Takayuki KATO ; Keisuke SUZUKI ; Sachiko WATANABE ; Noriyuki KATSUMATA
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2014;25(2):124-129
OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in patients with ovarian cancer who receive adjuvant paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy in clinical practice and to assess whether the frequency of CSF use differs among hospitals in Japan. METHODS: CSF use in patients with ovarian cancer who received first-line paclitaxel and carboplatin was analyzed retrospectively using data from the Japanese hospitalization payment system. RESULTS: A total of 1,050 patients at 104 hospitals were identified. The median age was 60 years (range, 22 to 88 years). Of these, 163 patients (15.5%) were diagnosed with neutropenia and 134 patients (12.8%) received CSFs. Among the patients who received CSFs, 125 (93%) received them for the treatment of neutropenia without fever and 1 received them for febrile neutropenia. In total, CSFs were administered for 272 cycles of chemotherapy. Among them, CSFs were used as treatment for neutropenia without fever in 259 cycles (95%), as prophylaxis (primary or secondary) in 12 cycles (4%), and as treatment for febrile neutropenia in 1 cycle. Among hospitals, a median of 4.0% of patients received CSFs with an interquartile range of 25% (Q1, 0%; Q3, 25%). A logistic random effects model showed that the variation in the proportion of patients receiving CSFs among the 104 hospitals was 2.0 (p<0.001), suggesting that the use of CSFs varied across hospitals. CONCLUSION: Most patients received CSFs for neutropenia without fever. Standardized and evidence-based use of CSFs is critically required among hospitals in Japan.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group
;
Carboplatin*
;
Colony-Stimulating Factors*
;
Drug Therapy
;
Febrile Neutropenia
;
Fever
;
Hospitalization
;
Humans
;
Japan*
;
Neutropenia
;
Ovarian Neoplasms*
;
Paclitaxel*
;
Retrospective Studies
2.Outcome of intradiscal condoliase injection therapy for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation
Noritaka SUZUKI ; Yawara EGUCHI ; Takashi HIRAI ; Takuya TAKAHASHI ; Yohei TAKAHASHI ; Kota WATANABE ; Tomohiro BANNO ; Kyohei SAKAKI ; Satoshi MAKI ; Yuuichi TAKANO ; Yuki TANIGUCHI ; Yasuchika AOKI ; Takamitsu KONISHI ; Yutaka HIRAIZUMI ; Masatsune YAMAGATA ; Akihiro HIRAKAWA ; Seiji OHTORI
Asian Spine Journal 2024;18(4):550-559
Methods:
The study participants were 249 patients who underwent intradiscal condoliase injection for LDH at nine participating institutions, including 241 patients with initial LDH (group C) and eight with recurrent LDH (group R). Patient characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, disease duration, intervertebral LDH level, smoking history, and diabetes history were evaluated. Low back pain/leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate clinical symptoms before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment.
Results:
Low back pain NRS scores (before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment, respectively) in group C (4.9 → 2.6 → 1.8) showed significant improvement until 1 year after treatment. Although a tendency for improvement was observed in group R (3.5 → 2.8 → 2.2), no significant difference was noted. Groups C (6.6 → 2.4 → 1.4) and R (7.0 → 3.1 → 3.2) showed significant improvement in the leg pain NRS scores after treatment. Group C (41.4 → 19.5 → 13.7) demonstrated significant improvement in the ODI up to 1 year after treatment; however, no significant difference was found in group R (35.7 → 31.7 → 26.4).
Conclusions
Although intradiscal condoliase injection is less effective for LDH recurrence than for initial cases, it is useful for improving leg pain and can be considered a minimally invasive and safe treatment method.
3.Outcome of intradiscal condoliase injection therapy for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation
Noritaka SUZUKI ; Yawara EGUCHI ; Takashi HIRAI ; Takuya TAKAHASHI ; Yohei TAKAHASHI ; Kota WATANABE ; Tomohiro BANNO ; Kyohei SAKAKI ; Satoshi MAKI ; Yuuichi TAKANO ; Yuki TANIGUCHI ; Yasuchika AOKI ; Takamitsu KONISHI ; Yutaka HIRAIZUMI ; Masatsune YAMAGATA ; Akihiro HIRAKAWA ; Seiji OHTORI
Asian Spine Journal 2024;18(4):550-559
Methods:
The study participants were 249 patients who underwent intradiscal condoliase injection for LDH at nine participating institutions, including 241 patients with initial LDH (group C) and eight with recurrent LDH (group R). Patient characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, disease duration, intervertebral LDH level, smoking history, and diabetes history were evaluated. Low back pain/leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate clinical symptoms before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment.
Results:
Low back pain NRS scores (before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment, respectively) in group C (4.9 → 2.6 → 1.8) showed significant improvement until 1 year after treatment. Although a tendency for improvement was observed in group R (3.5 → 2.8 → 2.2), no significant difference was noted. Groups C (6.6 → 2.4 → 1.4) and R (7.0 → 3.1 → 3.2) showed significant improvement in the leg pain NRS scores after treatment. Group C (41.4 → 19.5 → 13.7) demonstrated significant improvement in the ODI up to 1 year after treatment; however, no significant difference was found in group R (35.7 → 31.7 → 26.4).
Conclusions
Although intradiscal condoliase injection is less effective for LDH recurrence than for initial cases, it is useful for improving leg pain and can be considered a minimally invasive and safe treatment method.
4.Outcome of intradiscal condoliase injection therapy for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation
Noritaka SUZUKI ; Yawara EGUCHI ; Takashi HIRAI ; Takuya TAKAHASHI ; Yohei TAKAHASHI ; Kota WATANABE ; Tomohiro BANNO ; Kyohei SAKAKI ; Satoshi MAKI ; Yuuichi TAKANO ; Yuki TANIGUCHI ; Yasuchika AOKI ; Takamitsu KONISHI ; Yutaka HIRAIZUMI ; Masatsune YAMAGATA ; Akihiro HIRAKAWA ; Seiji OHTORI
Asian Spine Journal 2024;18(4):550-559
Methods:
The study participants were 249 patients who underwent intradiscal condoliase injection for LDH at nine participating institutions, including 241 patients with initial LDH (group C) and eight with recurrent LDH (group R). Patient characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, disease duration, intervertebral LDH level, smoking history, and diabetes history were evaluated. Low back pain/leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate clinical symptoms before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment.
Results:
Low back pain NRS scores (before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment, respectively) in group C (4.9 → 2.6 → 1.8) showed significant improvement until 1 year after treatment. Although a tendency for improvement was observed in group R (3.5 → 2.8 → 2.2), no significant difference was noted. Groups C (6.6 → 2.4 → 1.4) and R (7.0 → 3.1 → 3.2) showed significant improvement in the leg pain NRS scores after treatment. Group C (41.4 → 19.5 → 13.7) demonstrated significant improvement in the ODI up to 1 year after treatment; however, no significant difference was found in group R (35.7 → 31.7 → 26.4).
Conclusions
Although intradiscal condoliase injection is less effective for LDH recurrence than for initial cases, it is useful for improving leg pain and can be considered a minimally invasive and safe treatment method.
5.Outcome of intradiscal condoliase injection therapy for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation
Noritaka SUZUKI ; Yawara EGUCHI ; Takashi HIRAI ; Takuya TAKAHASHI ; Yohei TAKAHASHI ; Kota WATANABE ; Tomohiro BANNO ; Kyohei SAKAKI ; Satoshi MAKI ; Yuuichi TAKANO ; Yuki TANIGUCHI ; Yasuchika AOKI ; Takamitsu KONISHI ; Yutaka HIRAIZUMI ; Masatsune YAMAGATA ; Akihiro HIRAKAWA ; Seiji OHTORI
Asian Spine Journal 2024;18(4):550-559
Methods:
The study participants were 249 patients who underwent intradiscal condoliase injection for LDH at nine participating institutions, including 241 patients with initial LDH (group C) and eight with recurrent LDH (group R). Patient characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, disease duration, intervertebral LDH level, smoking history, and diabetes history were evaluated. Low back pain/leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate clinical symptoms before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment.
Results:
Low back pain NRS scores (before treatment and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment, respectively) in group C (4.9 → 2.6 → 1.8) showed significant improvement until 1 year after treatment. Although a tendency for improvement was observed in group R (3.5 → 2.8 → 2.2), no significant difference was noted. Groups C (6.6 → 2.4 → 1.4) and R (7.0 → 3.1 → 3.2) showed significant improvement in the leg pain NRS scores after treatment. Group C (41.4 → 19.5 → 13.7) demonstrated significant improvement in the ODI up to 1 year after treatment; however, no significant difference was found in group R (35.7 → 31.7 → 26.4).
Conclusions
Although intradiscal condoliase injection is less effective for LDH recurrence than for initial cases, it is useful for improving leg pain and can be considered a minimally invasive and safe treatment method.