Effectiveness of daily versus non‐daily granulocyte colony‐stimulating factors in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy: a multivariate analysis of data from current practice
Open Access
- 18 January 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Hindawi Limited in European Journal of Cancer Care
- Vol. 22 (3), 400-412
- https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12043
Abstract
We conducted a multicentre, retrospective, observational study including patients with solid tumours (excluding breast cancer) that received granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and chemotherapy. We investigated the effectiveness of daily vs. non-daily G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim) adjusting by potential confounders. The study included 391 patients (211 daily G-CSF; 180 pegfilgrastim), from whom 47.3% received primary prophylaxis (PP) (57.8% pegfilgrastim), 26.3% secondary prophylaxis (SP: initiation after cycle 1 and no reactive treatment in any cycle) (51.5% pegfilgrastim) and 26.3% reactive treatment (19.4% pegfilgrastim). Only 42.2% of patients with daily G-CSF and 46.2% with pegfilgrastim initiated prophylaxis within 72 h after chemotherapy, and only 10.5% of patients with daily G-CSF received it for ≥7 days. In the multivariate models, daily G-CSF was associated with higher risk of grade 3-4 neutropenia (G3-4N) vs. pegfilgrastim [odds ratio (OR): 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.004–2.97]. Relative to SP, PP protected against G3-4N (OR for SP vs. PP: 6.0, 95%CI: 3.2–11.4) and febrile neutropenia (OR: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.1–8.8), and was associated to less chemotherapy dose delays and reductions (OR for relative dose intensity <85% for SP vs. PP: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.7–5.4) and higher response rate (OR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.2–3.7). Data suggest that pegfilgrastim, compared with a daily G-CSF, and PP, compared with SP, could be more effective in preventing neutropenia and its related events in the clinical practice.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- Predicting individual risk of neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapyCancer, 2010
- Pegfilgrastim and daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: patterns of use and neutropenia-related outcomes in cancer patients in Spain - results of the LEARN StudyEuropean Journal of Cancer Care, 2009
- Febrile neutropenia and related complications in breast cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis versus current practice neutropaenia management: Results from an integrated analysisEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Multivariate analysis of febrile neutropenia occurrence in patients with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: data from the INC‐EU Prospective Observational European Neutropenia StudyBritish Journal of Haematology, 2009
- Novel Strategies for Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Treatment of Severe Prolonged Neutropenia Suggested by Mathematical ModelingClinical Cancer Research, 2008
- Impact of Primary Prophylaxis With Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor on Febrile Neutropenia and Mortality in Adult Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Systematic ReviewJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumoursEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 2006
- Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia by Prophylactic Antibiotics Plus or Minus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Dutch Randomized Phase III StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- A Combined Analysis of Average Relative Dose Intensity in the Chemotherapy of Solid Tumors with Pegfilgrastim or Filgrastim SupportSupportive Cancer Therapy, 2005
- G-CSF for the prophylaxis of neutropenic fever in patients with small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive antineoplastic chemotherapy: meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic evaluationJournal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics, 1996