Febrile neutropenia and related complications in breast cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis versus current practice neutropaenia management: Results from an integrated analysis

Minckwitz, Gϋnter von; Schwenkglenks, Matthias; Skácel, Tomáš; Lyman, Gary H.; Pousa, Antonio López; Bacon, Pamela; Easton, Valerie; Aapro, Matti

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.021

Cited by 61 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In that analysis (descriptive analysis of unmodelled data), 5% of patients in the PP pegfilgrastim group and 16% in the CP neutropenia management group experienced FN, with 3% and 10%, respectively, experiencing FN in cycle 1 [21]. Another recent study in elderly breast cancer patients evaluated the use of pegfilgrastim as primary or secondary prophylaxis to support the adjuvant dose-intense regimen FEC 100 , with results largely reflecting the findings of the present analysis [25].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Full details of the NeuCuP analysis have been published previously [21]. Commonly used breast cancer chemotherapy regimens with moderately high (15-19%) .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The critical factor for inclusion of a study in the final analysis was ready access to data (including FN incidence) at the individual patient level. Eight studies were excluded due to lack of data access (details of these studies are given in the primary publication [21]). Consequently, 11 studies were included in the integrated analysis (Table 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neutropenia Management]) have shown that PP with pegfilgrastim provides superior protection against FN compared with current practice (CP) neutropenia management in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with a moderately high to high risk of FN [21]. CP neutropenia management was defined as no G-CSF, or daily filgrastim and/or pegfilgrastim in any cycle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Aapro¹,

Schwenkglenks²,

Lyman³

et al. 2010

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Full details of the NeuCuP analysis have been published previously [21]. Commonly used breast cancer chemotherapy regimens with moderately high (15-19%) .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Aapro¹,

Schwenkglenks²,

Lyman³

et al. 2010

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, patients given G-CSF primary prophylaxis were more frequently given pegfilgrastim than filgrastim or lenograstim. Of those given daily G-CSF, the mean length of administration was only 5.2 days, which has previously been established to provide lower protection than one dose of pegfilgrastim [24][25][26][27]. Of those who received the DCF regimen, the use of G-CSF primary prophylaxis was higher, though a full 30 % of patients were not administered protection against neutropenia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Chemotherapy treatment patterns and neutropenia management in gastric cancer

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Potentially myelosuppressive doublet and triplet chemotherapy combination regimens are considered the most active treatments in gastric cancer. This multicenter prospective observational study was designed to gain insight into the chemotherapy regimens being used in Europe and to evaluate neutropenia management in patients identified as at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). Methods Eligible patients had gastric cancer, were scheduled for C 3 cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk C 20 %. Data were collected for up to ten cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (defined as G-CSF initiated on days 1-7 of cycle 1). Secondary endpoints included FN incidence, chemotherapy administration, and G-CSF use. Results Of 199 patients who met the eligibility criteria and started at least one cycle of chemotherapy, mean age was 63 years, 76 % were men, 83 % had an ECOG score of 0 or 1, 54 % had metastatic disease, and 24 % had received prior chemotherapy. A total of 27 different backbone regimens were given; the most common regimen was modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF). Despite all patients having been identified as having a C 20 % FN risk, only 70 (35 %) received G-CSF primary prophylaxis. FN occurred in 14 patients overall (7 %). Most FN events occurred in patients who received DCF/modified DCF (9/14 events, 64 %). Conclusions The results of this study reveal a high use of myelotoxic treatment regimens in gastric cancer in Europe and low adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the use of primary and secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for FN.

show abstract

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: results from an integrated analysis

Pettengell

Schwenkglenks

Bacon

et al. 2011

Hematological Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are serious, dose-limiting side effects of chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Observational data suggest that with current practice neutropenia management up to 23% of patients receiving CHOP-like regimens experience FN, and around half of patients do not receive the planned relative dose intensity (RDI). In this integrated analysis we assessed the efficacy of pegfilgrastim for preventing FN and related outcomes in patients with NHL. A literature search was used to identify chemotherapy regimens with an FN risk ≥15% that are used to treat lymphoma. Search results were then used to identify clinical trials in which these regimens were administered with pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis. Individual patient data were available for three trials meeting the inclusion criteria, and these were combined in an integrated analysis. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of FN in any cycle. A total of 282 patients were included in the analysis [mean age 65 years (SD ± 12.5 years); 172 (61%) aged ≥ 65 years]. All patients had NHL and 244 (87%) received RCHOP-21. The incidence of FN in any cycle was 16% (95% CI 12-20%) (13% in patients aged <65 years; 18% in patients aged ≥65 years). Chemotherapy dose delays >3 days occurred in 26% (95% CI 20-31%) of patients, and was relatively consistent across age groups. Chemotherapy dose reductions ≥10% were seen in 43% (95% CI 37-49%) of patients and were more frequent in the elderly. Overall, 83% (95% CI 78-87%) of patients received ≥90% RDI (89% of patients aged <65 years; 78% of patients aged ≥65 years). In this integrated analysis of NHL patients at higher risk of FN receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis, the overall incidence of FN was 16% and a high proportion of both younger and elderly patients achieved RDI ≥90%.

show abstract

Febrile neutropenia and related complications in breast cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis versus current practice neutropaenia management: Results from an integrated analysis

Cited by 61 publications

References 27 publications

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Chemotherapy treatment patterns and neutropenia management in gastric cancer

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: results from an integrated analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About