Pegfilgrastim +/- ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the events that may occur during and after a high-risk chemotherapy treatment. Various G-CSF prophylaxis strategies and medications were compared in the model. Effectiveness data were derived from the literature and an analysis of the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Cost data were obtained from a published NHIRD study, and health utility values were also obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NT$269,683 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to primary prophylaxis with lenograstim. The ICER for primary prophylaxis with lenograstim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis was NT$61,995 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to variations in relative risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) for pegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis. Furthermore, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita, the probability of being cost-effective was 88.1% for primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that primary prophylaxis with either short- or long-acting G-CSF could be considered cost-effective for FN prevention in breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens.

Assessing the Optimal Regimen: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer

Patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy are susceptible to prolonged and severe neutropenia. Multiple biosimilars of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (LA-G-CSFs) have been newly developed to prevent this disease. Nonetheless, which LA-G-CSF regimen has the optimal balance of efficacy and safety remains controversial. Moreover, there is a lack of evidence supporting clinical decisions on LA-G-CSF dose escalation in poor conditions. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and several Chinese databases were searched (December 2022) to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about LA-G-CSFs preventing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients. No restrictions were imposed on language. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. We assessed the incidence of severe neutropenia (SN) and febrile neutropenia (FN), the duration of SN (DSN), and the absolute neutrophil account recovery time (ANCrt) for efficacy, while the incidence of severe adverse events (SAE) was assessed for safety. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022361606). A total of 33 RCTs were included. Our network meta-analysis demonstrated that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg and eflapegrastim 13.2 mg outperformed other LA-G-CSFs with high efficacy rates and few safety concerns (SUCRA of lipegfilgrastim 6 mg: ANC rt 95.2%, FN 97.4%; eflapegrastim 13.2 mg: FN 87%, SN 89.3%). Additionally, 3.6 mg, 4.5 mg, 6 mg, and 13.2 mg dosages all performed significantly better than 1.8 mg in reducing the duration of SN (3.6 mg: DSN, SMD -0.68 [-1.13, -0.22; moderate]; 4.5 mg: -0.87 [-1.57, -0.17; low]; 6 mg: -0.89 [-1.49, -0.29; moderate]; 13.2 mg: -1.02 [1.63, -0.41; high]). Increasing the dosage from the guideline-recommended 6 mg to 13.2 mg can reduce both the duration and incidence of SN (SMD -0.13 [-0.24 to -0.03], RR 0.65 [0.43 to 0.96], respectively), with no significant difference in SAE. For patients with breast cancer, lipegfilgrastim 6 mg and eflapegrastim 13.2 mg might be the most effective regimen among LA-G-CSFs. Higher doses of LA-G-CSF may enhance efficacy without causing additional SAEs.

Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Long-acting G-CSF as Primary Prophylaxis of Neutropenia Induced by Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients, From a Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia caused by chemotherapy for breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer who received long- or short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia were enrolled in this study, and incidences of neutropenia were compared between two groups. A decision-analytic and a Markov model were used to compare the health benefits and costs of utilizing long- vs short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. Subsequently, one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in baseline and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia experienced a significant lower incidence of this adverse event, compared with the short-acting one for 2 to 7 days. The outcomes of baseline analysis indicated that long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor had a gain of 0.08 quality-adjusted life years and costed $149 more than the short-acting one, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1792 per quality-adjusted life year. The sensitivity analysis proved the stability of our models and economic efficiency of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia experienced lower risk of this event compared with those underusing short-acting one. The long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor may be a more cost-effective strategy for primary prophylaxis of neutropenia than short-acting one, considering the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of $12158.6 per quality-adjusted life year.

A prospective, randomized clinical trial of emergency treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia by pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF)

AIMS

As one of the mainstays of breast cancer therapy, chemotherapy inevitably induces neutropenia. In this study, we explored the role of PEG-rhG-CSF (pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in the emergency treatment of chemotherapy-induced grades 3-4 neutropenia.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with breast cancer were randomized (1:1) into the study. Fifty patients randomized to the experimental group were treated with PEG-rhG-CSF after grades 3-4 neutropenia following the first cycle of chemotherapy, while 50 patients randomized to the control group received a daily injection of rhG-CSF (recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). The primary endpoint was the recovery time of grades 3-4 neutropenia.

RESULTS

Compared with patients in the control group, the mean ± SD recovery time of grades 3-4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) was significantly shorter for patients in the experimental group (grades 3-4, P = .000; grade 4, P = .000; FN, P = .038). There is no significant difference in the incidence of FN for the two groups. In the experimental group, the duration of grades 3-4 neutropenia in patients aged <60 years and ≥60 years was 2.15 and 3.20 days, respectively (P = .037). Adverse events (AEs) of any grade were reported in 37 (75.5%) and 28 (59.6%) patients from the two groups, respectively. No grade ≥3 AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

This study supported that the PEG-rhG-CSF was more effective and convenient than rhG-CSF for treating grades 3-4 neutropenia and FN in patients with breast cancer and had manageable toxicity.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020.

RESULTS

We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

COVID-19 Prevention Guidance and the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving TAC Chemotherapy with Prophylactic Pegfilgrastim

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that causes severe adverse effects and death. Respiratory infections are one of the main causes of fever in patients with FN. We studied whether infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance for coronavirus 2019 disease reduced the incidence of FN. We reviewed female patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide with prophylactic pegfilgrastim between 2019 and 2021. IPC guidance was implemented in April 2020. There was no difference in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia between patients with and without IPC. In patients with IPC, the incidence of FN (9.5%) was lower than that of patients without IPC (27.9%). The hospitalization duration (0.7 ± 1.5 days) and total hospital cost (279.6 ± 42.6 USD) of the IPC group were significantly lower than that of the non-IPC group (2.0 ± 3.8 days and 364.7 ± 271.6 USD, respectively). IPC guidance should be implemented to prevent FN in high-risk patients with breast cancer.

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a post-marketing surveillance study

PURPOSE

Phase IV clinical trials are required to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of once-per-cycle administration of PegaGen^® (pegfilgrastim, CinnaGen, Iran) in cancer patients.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, prospective, real-world, post-marketing surveillance study, patients with any type of cancer receiving chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) were included if they were prescribed pegfilgrastim for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and the secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in the prevention of FN in cancer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 654 patients (51.73 ± 15.12 years of age) were enrolled and 3615 cycles of pegfilgrastim injections were recorded. The most common malignancies among the study patients were breast cancer (n = 192, 29.36%), lymphoma (n = 131, 20.03%), and gastric cancer (n = 65, 9.94%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of pegfilgrastim cycles per patient was 6 (4, 7). A single 6 mg dose was injected in 99.17% of the cycles. A total number of 816 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 246 patients (37.62%). Bone pain was recorded in 141 patients (21.56%) and in 440 cycles (12.17%). Among all patients, 45 patients (6.88%) experienced FN 51 times, and FN frequency was 1.4% among cycles. Moreover, 14 (2.14%) patients were hospitalized following FN. Antibiotics were administered to 24 patients (3.67%) for FN treatment.

CONCLUSION

The results from this post-marketing surveillance study support the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen^® used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with various types of cancer and treatment regimens.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04460079.

Biosimilars accessible in the market for the treatment of cancer

Biosimilars are the biological product clinically identical to a biologic reference standard regarding their strength, purity, and safety. A large segment of biosimilars has been developed for the treatment of cancer. This review aims to discuss various facets of biosimilars and explicates on biosimilars accessible in the market for cancer clinical intervention. It also illustrates the outcomes of recent clinical trial studies concerning biosimilars. Further, it also crosstalk the safety profiles, regulatory approval requirements, and allied challenges therein. The work will be of significant interest to researchers working in the field of biologics and biosimilars.

Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim: Improving Access and Optimising Practice to Supportive Care that Enables Cure

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2–21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10–14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (< 7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.

A retrospective analysis of nadir-neutropenia directed pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia rates in (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy regimens

BACKGROUND

Pegfilgrastim, a pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating-factor (GCSF), reduces chemotherapy morbidity and mortality in early stage breast cancer. The optimal approach to individual patient selection for GCSF is unknown, in particular whether secondary GCSF should be given after asymptomatic neutropenia, or only after febrile neutropenia (FN).

AIMS

To determine if preplanned nadir blood counts and subsequent nadir-neutropenia directed GCSF was effective to reduce rates of FN associated with (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. We also aimed to describe (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and GCSF prescribing practices at our institution.

METHODS

This was a retrospective electronic medical record review. The rate of FN with secondary GCSF after cycle 1 nadir-neutropenia <1.0 × 10⁹ cells/L was compared with the rate of FN in patients who did not have cycle 1 nadir blood counts or secondary GCSF, and analyzed according to patient and treatment data.

RESULTS

Between 11/4/2011 and 22/4/2018, 584 patients received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Over all rates of FN were 17%, compared with 9% in patients who received primary GCSF. Rates of FN were highest in docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab (TCH, 27%) and docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC, 27%). There were 268 patients (46%) who received primary GCSF and 238 patients (41%) who received secondary GCSF. Rates of FN did not differ between patients who received nadir-neutropenia directed secondary GCSF (6/125, 5%, 95% CI 1.1-8.6), and those who did not have nadir blood counts or secondary GCSF (0/49, 0%, 95% CI not calculable) (P = .1186). GCSF use was associated with lower rates of non-FN hospital admissions. Patients ≥65 years were more likely to have FN and non-FN admissions. Two of three treatment related deaths occurred due to FN.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, nadir-neutropenia directed secondary GCSF was not associated with reduced rates of FN. Observed rates of FN >20% in TC and TCH in routine clinical practice should guide primary GCSF use in accordance with international guidelines.

Management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: 2019 guidelines of the Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM)

Neutropenia is the most frequent side effect of commercially available myelosuppressive drugs and its most significant complication is febrile neutropenia. It is associated with increased hospital admissions and higher probability of death. Prophylaxis with the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can prevent neutropenia caused by anticancer drugs. The correct administration of these drugs and the management of febrile neutropenia are extremely important in the treatment of patients with cancer.

Clinical utility of polyethylene glycol conjugated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-G-CSF) for preventing severe neutropenia in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab: a single-center retrospective study

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of polyethylene glycol conjugated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-G-CSF) for preventing neutropenia in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients that received fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab (Bev) in clinical practice.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed mCRC patients who received FOLFOXIRI plus Bev between December 2015 and December 2017. We evaluated the efficacy of PEG-G-CSF as preventing or treating grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, the overall response rate (ORR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events of FOLFOXIRI plus Bev based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.

Results

A total of 26 patients (median age 53.5 years) were included. The ORR rate was 65.3%, the median PFS was 9.6 months (7.2–16.9), and the median OS was 24.2 months (13.6–NA). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 53.8% of the patients, and febrile neutropenia occurred in 7.7%. PEG-G-CSF was given to 77.0% of the patients, including prophylactically (n = 9) and after the development of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (n = 11). No patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia after the administration of PEG-G-CSF. In seven of the nine patients who received PEG-G-CSF prophylactically (77.8%), no dose adjustment was required.

Conclusions

PEG-G-CSF is useful in preventing severe neutropenia in mCRC patients treated with FOLFOXIRI plus Bev.

A multicentre, randomised trial comparing schedules of G-CSF (filgrastim) administration for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in early stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer patients is unknown, with 5, 7 or 10 days being commonly prescribed. This trial evaluates whether 5 days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomised, open-label trial, early breast cancer patients who were to receive filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis were randomly allocated to 5 versus 7 versus 10 days of filgrastim for all chemotherapy cycles. A protocol amendment in November 2017 allowed subsequent patients (N = 324) to be randomised to either 5 or 7/10 days. The primary outcome was a composite of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisations. Secondary outcomes included chemotherapy dose reductions, delays and discontinuations. Analyses were carried out by per protocol (primary) and intention-to-treat, and the non-inferiority margin was set at 3% for the risk of having FN and/or hospitalisation per cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 466) were randomised to receive 5 (184, 39.5%), or 7/10 (282, 60.5%) days of filgrastim. In our primary analysis, the difference in risk of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation per cycle was -1.52% [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.22% to 0.19%] suggesting non-inferiority of a 5-day filgrastim schedule compared with 7/10-days. The difference in events per cycle for FN was 0.11% (95% CI: -1.05 to 1.27) while for treatment-related hospitalisations it was -1.68% (95% CI: -2.73% to -0.63%). The overall proportions of patients having at least one occurrence of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation were 11.8% and 14.96% for the 5- and 7/10-day groups, respectively (risk difference: -3.17%, 95% CI: -9.51% to 3.18%).

CONCLUSION

Five days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. Given the cost and toxicity of this agent, 5 days should be considered standard of care. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT02428114 and NCT02816164.

Neutropenic complications in the PANTHER phase III study of adjuvant tailored dose-dense chemotherapy in early breast cancer

Introduction: Myelosuppresion is a common side effect of chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often used to reduce the risk of neutropenic events. The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to investigate neutropenic complications in the phase III PANTHER trial of standard 3-weekly chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus docetaxel (FEC/D) versus bi-weekly tailored dose-dense EC/D adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.Patients and methods: Febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection and infection grade 3-4 according to CTC AE 3.0, were explored in relation to G-CSF use. Per cycle analysis was performed concerning dose reduction and dose delays in conjunction with G-CSF administration.Results: In the experimental group, 98.9% of patients received primary G-CSF support during EC and 97.4% during docetaxel, compared with 49.7% during FEC and 63.88% during docetaxel in the standard group. Overall, the use of G-CSF was associated with a lower risk for developing neutropenic events (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.55, p < .001). Chemotherapy delays due to neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly decreased among patients that received G-CSF (OR 0.098, 95% CI 0.06-0.15 and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58, respectively).Discussion: In conclusion, G-CSF support reduces neutropenic events and permits increased relative dose intensity, which is essential for improved survival outcomes.

A pilot study on intermittent every other days of 5-dose Filgrastim compared with single Pegfilgrastim in breast Cancer patients receiving adjuvant Docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy

Aim To compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent every other days 5-dose filgrastim with single pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy. Methods In this pilot study, Korean patients who had undergone complete resection for breast cancer and scheduled for adjuvant TAC chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either intermittent 5 doses of filgrastim (5 mcg/kg/day) or once-a-cycle pegfilgrastim (6 mg) as primary prophylaxis during the first three cycles of the TAC chemotherapy. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was analyzed as well. Results A total of 22 patients were randomly and equally divided into filgrastim or pegfilgrastim arms. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurred in 1 patient in the pegfilgrastim arm (1 of 33 cycles) and none in the filgrastim arm. G3 neutropenia occurred in 1 patient (1 of 33 cycles) in the filgrastim arm and 2 patients (4 of 33 cycles) in the pegfilgrastim arm (P = 0.476). G4 neutropenia occurred in 11 patients (28 of 33 cycles) in the filgrastim arm and 9 patients (18 of 33 cycles) in the pegfilgrastim arm (P = 0.476). Except for on day 9 in cycle 3, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of ANC. Conclusion We observed no significant differences between the two methods of prophylaxis in terms of FN and G3/4 neutropenia incidence in patients receiving adjuvant TAC chemotherapy. Intermittent every other days 5-dose filgrastim may be available alternative to pegfilgrastim.

Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

The optimum granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment for cancer patients after being treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of 11 G-CSF drugs on patients after chemotherapy. A total of 73 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) containing 15,124 cancer patients were included for the final network meta-analysis. Compared with pegfilgrastim, there were a higher risk with filgrastim for incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) (OR [95% CI]: 1.63 [1.07, 2.46]), and a higher risk with short-acting G-CSF (S-G-CSF) biosimilar and lenograstim for incidence of bone pain (BP) (OR [95% CI]: 6.45 [1.10, 65.73], 5.12 [1.14, 26.12], respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were best G-CSF drugs in reducing FN (cumulative probabilities: 58%, 15%, 11%, respectively). S-G-CSF biosimilar, empegfilgrastim, and long-acting G-CSF (L-G-CSF) biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing severe neutropenia (SN) (cumulative probabilities: 21%, 20%, 15%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, balugrastim, lipegfilgrastim and L-G-CSF biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing BP (cumulative probabilities: 20%, 14%, 8%, 8%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim might be the most appreciate G-CSF drugs with both good efficacy and tolerability when treating cancer patients after cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Safety analysis of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar in Phase I and Phase III studies

Aim: This analysis compares safety data for Sandoz proposed biosimilar (LA-EP2006) and reference pegfilgrastim from a Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers (HVs) and two Phase III confirmatory studies in patients with breast cancer (BC; total n = 808). Patients & methods: Baseline characteristics were summarized, and event rates of bone pain and headache calculated. Results: HVs in the Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study were generally younger, with lower mean body mass index, versus BC patients in PROTECT-1/-2. Bone pain was the most frequent adverse event with similar incidences with reference versus proposed biosimilar in all studies. Conclusion: No differences in adverse events were found between Sandoz proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim, notwithstanding some differences between HVs and BC patients.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

BACKGROUND

Two recent evaluations reported that many cancer chemotherapy patients discontinue pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) following the first cycle, and that these patients have a higher subsequent risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Such evidence is based principally on the experience of younger adults with private healthcare coverage, and the generalizability of results to elderly Medicare patients is unknown.

METHODS

A matched-cohort design and data from the Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files were employed. The source population comprised cancer patients aged ≥65 years who received chemotherapy with intermediate/high-risk for FN and first-cycle PP. From the source population, beginning with the second cycle, all patients who received PP in all previous cycles were identified. From this sub-set, patients who did not receive PP in the cycle of interest ("comparison patients") were matched to those who received PP in that cycle ("PP patients"); the same process was repeated for subsequent cycles. Odds ratios (OR) for FN (broad and narrow definitions) were estimated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Among 77,616 elderly patients in the source population, 5.3% did not receive second-cycle PP and were matched to those who did. In cycle 2, FN odds were significantly higher among comparison patients vs PP patients when employing the broad definition (OR = 1.9, p < .001) and the narrow definition (OR = 2.1, p < .001). Results for subsequent cycles (broad definition: OR = 2.0, p < .001; narrow definition: OR = 2.1, p < .001) and for the last cycle (broad definition: OR = 1.4, p = .060; narrow definition: OR = 1.7, p = .055) were largely comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale evaluation of elderly Medicare patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and first-cycle PP in recent US clinical practice, FN risk was substantially lower among patients who continued to receive PP in subsequent cycles vs those who discontinued PP.

SEOM clinical practice guideline: management and prevention of febrile neutropenia in adults with solid tumors (2018)

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy, with a profound impact on the evolution of patients with cancer, due to the potential development of serious complications, mortality, delays, and decrease in treatment intensity. This article seeks to present an updated clinical guideline, with recommendations regarding the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of febrile neutropenia in adults with solid tumors. The aspects covered include how to properly approach the risk of microbial resistances, epidemiological aspects, considerations about the initial empirical approach adapted to the risk, special situations, and prevention of complications. A decision-making algorithm is included for use in the emergency department based on a new, validated tool, the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia, which can be used in patients with solid tumors who appear stable in the initial phase of neutropenic infections, and can help detect those at high risk for complications in whom early discharge must be avoided.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia

Introduction

Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.

Methods

Medline^®/Medline in-process, Embase^®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.

Results

The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).

Conclusions

Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.

Funding

Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reduced dose pegfilgrastim is associated with less bone pain without increased neutropenia: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy for breast cancer is associated with a high risk of neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim reduces the risk of neutropenic fever but commonly causes bone pain.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate whether a reduced dose of pegfilgrastim (3 mg) reduced the frequency of bone pain without compromising efficacy.

METHODS

Records reviewed from breast cancer patients who received at least one 3 mg dose of pegfilgrastim, white blood count (WBC), and absolute granulocyte counts (AGC) were collected. Musculoskeletal pain scale was collected at each visit.

RESULTS

265 treatments from 36 women were analyzed. There was no difference in post-treatment AGC between 3 versus 6 mg. Leukocytosis (WBC > 20,000 cells/cu mm) was more likely for those treated with 6 mg (chi-square 5.265, p = 0.0215). There was higher change in bone pain in patients who received 6 mg doses compared to none or 3 mg.

LIMITATIONS

In this retrospective, non-randomized study, we found the majority of patients received the reduced 3 mg dose after intolerance to the 6 mg dose. It is unknown if smaller or larger doses than 3 mg would achieve similar results or whether 3 mg dose would be effective as an initial therapy or for patients receiving different chemotherapy regimens. Pain is observed despite premedication with naproxen and/or loratidine.

CONCLUSION

Reduced dose of pegfilgrastim 3 mg was less likely to cause bone pain. The reduced dose was not associated with a significant difference in post-treatment AGC or rate of serious infection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lipegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in women with breast cancer in Australia: a modelled economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in women with early stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Two Markov models including a chemotherapy and a post-chemotherapy models were constructed with a time horizon of 12 weeks and 30 years, respectively. All the transition probabilities and utility weights were derived from clinical trials and/or published literatures. The costs populated in the chemotherapy model were extracted from Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme and the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. No cost was considered in the post-chemotherapy model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

From the first chemotherapy model, lipegfilgrastim was associated with fewer episodes of severe neutropenia (SN) (N = 142 per 1000 patients treated), febrile neutropenia (FN) (N = 29 per 1000 patients treated), infection (N = 17 per 1000 patients treated) and chemotherapy delayed (N = 170 per 1000 patients treated) and lower cost ($116.88 less per patient treated). The post-chemotherapy model indicated lipegfilgrastim led to higher gains in both life years (18.72 versus 18.61) and quality-adjusted life years (17.28 versus 17.18) in comparison to pegfilgrastim. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results from the chemotherapy model is very sensitive to the baseline risk of SN; while from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, lipegfilgrastim was likely to be more cost-effective than pegfilgrastim based on two models.

CONCLUSIONS

Lipegfilgrastim was likely to be a cost-effective alternative to pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis. The sensitivity analysis showed the confidence interval for the cost and benefit outcomes overlapped to a great extent, suggesting an insignificant difference.

Pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing TAC chemotherapy

Purpose

Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can effectively prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) during breast cancer treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of FN and the ANC profile in patients undergoing chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis.

Methods

Patients receiving 6 cycles of adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy were included in this study. Pegfilgrastim was administered with analgesics 24 hours after treatment. Laboratory tests were performed on day 0 (before chemotherapy) and ANC was measured daily starting day 5 until it were restored to 1,000/mm³. Bone pain was checked via the numeral rating scale (NRS).

Results

A total of 61 patients and 366 cycles were evaluated. Mean age was 49.2 ± 7.1 years. FN was seen in 5 patients (16.4%) and 12 cycles (3.3%) with pegfilgrastim. Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia was seen in 91.5% of cycles with FN. The ANC nadir was most commonly seen at day 7 and the mean ANC nadir depth was 265.7/m³. Age was negatively correlated with nadir depth (r = −0.137, P = 0.009). Severe pain higher than NRS 7 occurred in less than 20% of patients after the administration of pegfilgrastim.

Conclusion

Incidence of FN was low during the chemotherapy by primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. The ANC nadir was seen on day 7 after chemotherapy. Bone pain with pegfilgrastim was well tolerated during TAC chemotherapy.

Intensive care in cancer patients in the age of immunotherapy and molecular therapies: Commitment of the SEOM-SEMICYUC

Cancer patients are a vulnerable group exposed to numerous and serious risks beyond cancer itself. In recent years, the prognosis of these individuals has improved substantially thanks to several advances such as immunotherapy, targeted molecular therapies, surgical techniques, or developments in support treatment. This coincides with the prolonged survival of oncological patients admitted to the ICU due to critical complications, and under the supervision of intensivists. The time has therefore come to revisit the intensive care support of these patients, which poses new professional as well as organizational challenges. An agreement was signed in 2017 between the SEOM and SEMICYUC with the aim of improving the quality of care of cancer patients with critical complications. The initiative seeks to aid in decision-making, standardize criteria, decrease subjectivity, generate channels of communication, and delve deeper into the ethical and scientific aspects of these situations. This document sets forth the most important reasons that have led us to undertake this initiative.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pegfilgrastim versus Six Days of Filgrastim for Preventing Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients

Aims and background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality and costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus six-day filgrastim in preventing FN in Italian patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy associated with a ≥20% FN risk.

Methods

The pharmacoeconomic evaluation was based on a decision-analytic model taking into account the possible consequences of FN (e.g., death and reduction/delay of chemotherapy dose). Parameters included in the model were relative risk of FN with pegfilgrastim versus six-day filgrastim; direct costs (drug purchase and FN-related hospitalizations); relative risk of relative dose intensity <85% with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim; impact on long-term survival due to relative dose intensity <85%; and impact of age on FN and relative dose intensity <85%.

Results

Under base-case assumptions, pegfilgrastim was cost-effective compared to six-day filgrastim in Italy. The estimated cost, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years per person for pegfilgrastim were € 3078, 16.47 years, and 15.32; the corresponding figures for six-day filgrastim were € 3033, 16.35 years, and 15.22. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with pegfilgrastim was € 409 per life-year gained and € 429 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The results were moderately sensitive to the cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, cost of drug administration, cost of FN hospitalization, and number of chemotherapy cycles. Pegfilgrastim remained cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well below the accepted limit of € 50,000 per life year gained in all one-way sensitivity analyses. A two-way sensitivity analysis on cost of drugs showed a range of pegfilgrastim dominance over six-day filgrastim.

Conclusions

At the current official price in Italy, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim improved health outcomes with a very limited cost increase for the National Health Service payer. Even when very low prices of filgrastim and high prices of pegfilgrastim were considered in the model, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained well within the acceptable cost-effectiveness limit of € 50,000/quality-adjusted life year.

The Impact of Biosimilars in Supportive Care in Cancer

Collapse

A Multicenter Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Docetaxel and Gemcitabine in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer

Purpose

The current multicenter phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of docetaxel and gemcitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locally advanced breast cancer.

Methods

A total of 98 patients with stage II–III breast cancer were enrolled. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR) rate of invasive cancer after the completion of the fourth cycle of NAC. The secondary endpoints included response rate (RR), rate of breast-conserving surgery, toxicity, and disease-free survival (DFS). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352494).

Results

pCR in the breast and the axillary lymph node was observed in seven of the 98 enrolled patients (7.1%). The overall clinical RR, including partial responses, was 65.3%. Breast-conserving surgery was performed in 75 of the 98 assessable patients (76.5%). Neutropenia was frequent and was observed in 92 of the 98 patients (93.9%), including grade 3 and 4 in 24 patients (24.5%) and 63 patients (64.3%), respectively. Dose reductions were required for 30 of the 92 patients (32.6%). After a median follow-up of 24 months, the overall DFS of the group was 86.7%.

Conclusion

The combination of docetaxel and gemcitabine did not improve pCR. However, this regimen has shown potential as a NAC by producing a reasonable rate of breast-conserving surgery and favorable responses in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. The therapeutic efficacy of this regimen will be determined in additional trials to overcome the limitations of the current study.

Adequate Neutrophil Responses and Non-Inferior Clinical Outcomes Can Be Achieved by a Two-Day Course of Low-Dose Filgrastim: A Retrospective Single Institution Experience

Background

Filgrastim is used in the setting of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia to stimulate recovery of bone marrow, which allows for further chemotherapy administration without delay. The recommended dose is 5 ug/kg. The commercially available vials of the drug come in two strengths; 300 ug and 480 ug. Due to these limitations in dosage formulations, it is a frequent occurrence to administer a lower dosage to patients weighing more than 60 kg, in whom the ideal dose would have been more than 300 ug but less than 480 ug. It is also a frequent practice to administer the drug for two consecutive days as it often leads to adequate response that will render patients eligible for their next cycle administration.

Objective

To determine whether a course of 300 ug of filgrastim administered daily for two consecutive days was as successful at reducing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related complications in patients with a higher weight (>60 kg) and hence receiving suboptimal dose as compared to those with weight less than 60 kg who are receiving the recommended dose.

Methods

We identified 91 patients from our facility with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia treated with 300 ug of filgrastim daily for two consecutive days, and we separated them into low, medium, and high weight groups. Multivariate logistic regression models examined correlations between outcomes (e.g., increases in absolute neutrophil count) and predictors (e.g., weight groups).

Results

The vast majority of encounters demonstrated rises in white blood cell (WBC) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Infection rates were not significantly different between low and medium weight groups (5% vs 0%; p = 0.1658), but the high weight group’s infection rate was significantly higher than the medium weight group (5% vs 33%; p = 0.001). The high weight group did have an increased rate of febrile neutropenia as compared to medium and low weight groups, but these differences were not significant. Incidences of chemotherapy delay and dose reduction were comparable across the three weight groups.

Limitations

Retrospective study, small sample size, heterogeneous cancer sites and different chemotherapy regimens administered limit generalizability of findings.

Conclusion

Patients with weights <85 kg receiving a two-day course of 300 ug of filgrastim have similar neutropenia-related complication rates with a potential percent cost-savings of roughly 43%.

A multi-center pragmatic, randomized, feasibility trial comparing standard of care schedules of filgrastim administration for primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis in early-stage breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

The most effective duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer (EBC) patients is unknown. Despite significant differences in cost and toxicity, no prospective trial has been performed to optimize practice. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic trial model to compare the most commonly used schedules of filgrastim.

METHODS

Early breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were randomized to 5, 7, or 10 days of filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis. The trial methodology integrated broad eligibility criteria, simply defined endpoints, an integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, and web-based randomization in the clinic. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of primary endpoints including patient and physician engagement (if > 50% of appropriate patients approached agree to participate, and if > 50% of physicians approached patients for the study). Secondary endpoints included the first occurrence rates of FN, treatment-related hospital admission, or chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuation.

RESULTS

From May 2015 to August 2016, 142/149 (95.3%) patients approached agreed to participate and were randomized. Seventeen of 24 (70.8%) medical oncologists approached and randomized patients. The 142 patients received a total of 495 cycles of chemotherapy. Aggregate incidences of a first event by patient were FN (8/142, 5.6%), treatment-related hospitalization (6/142, 4.2%), chemotherapy discontinuation (7/142, 4.9%), chemotherapy delays (5/142, 3.5%), and chemotherapy dose reduction (18/142, 12.7%). Overall, 31.7% (45/142) of patients and 9.0% (45/495) of chemotherapy cycles were associated with one of these first events.

CONCLUSION

This study met its feasibility endpoints. This novel pragmatic trial approach offers a means of comparing standard of care treatments in a practical and cost-effective manner. The trial will now be expanded to compare rates of FN between the three filgrastim schedules.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02428114.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis based on real-world data from 2010 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Evidence suggests that not all cancer chemotherapy patients who receive first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) continue to receive it in later cycles, and that these patients may be subsequently at higher risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Available evidence, however, may not be reflective of current clinical practice. We undertook an evaluation to estimate the odds of FN, beginning with second chemotherapy cycle, among patients who received PP in that cycle and all previous cycles versus those who received PP in all previous cycles only, using recent real-world data.

METHODS

A matched-cohort design and data from two US healthcare claims repositories (2010-2015) were employed. The source population comprised cancer patients who received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy and first-cycle PP. From the source population, beginning with the second cycle, all patients who received PP in all previous cycles were identified. From this subset, patients who did not receive PP in the cycle of interest ("comparison patients") were matched to those who received PP in that cycle ("PP patients"); the same process was repeated for subsequent cycles. Odds ratios (ORs) for FN (broad and narrow definitions) were estimated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Among 47,254 patients in the source population, 9% did not receive second-cycle PP and were matched to those who did. FN odds in cycle 2 were significantly higher among comparison patients versus PP patients (OR [broad definition]: 1.7, p < .001); OR [narrow definition]: 4.3, p < .001). Results for subsequent cycles and for the last cycle, respectively, were comparable (OR [range, broad definition]: 1.6 to 3.1, p < .001 for all; OR [range, narrow definition]: 2.7 to 11.8, p < .001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients who received first-cycle PP, FN risk was substantially higher among patients who did not receive PP in subsequent cycles versus those who continued PP.

Effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim vs. original granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in febrile neutropenia prevention in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe the effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim and original granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), lenograstim and pegfilgrastim, in febrile neutropenia (FN) prevention in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC) as adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment and to analyze their treatment patterns.

METHODS

A pharmacoepidemiology cohort study was developed in a university hospital (with 23 healthcare centers) with retrospective data collection (2012-2014). Effectiveness of G-CSFs was assessed by the FN incidence. Other parameters analyzed were as follows: moderate and severe neutropenia incidence, neutropenia-related hospitalizations, dosage, and duration. Data was analyzed using each cycle as a unit of analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 98 patients representing 518 chemotherapy cycles, 215 with original G-CSFs (35 lenograstim and 180 pegfilgrastim) and 303 with biosimilar filgrastim. The FN incidence was similar in both groups (3.7% original vs. 3.3% biosimilar; p = 0.79). No statistically significant differences were found in moderate and severe neutropenia incidence (4.7 vs. 6.3%; p = 0.43) or neutropenia-related hospitalizations (3.3 vs. 3.6%; p = 0.19). When the three drugs were evaluated separately, a higher FN incidence was observed with lenograstim than with pegfilgratim or biosimilar (p = 0.024). The dosage and duration of biosimilar were lower than lenograstim (4.9 vs. 5.7 μg/kg/day; 5 vs. 7 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

An abbreviated 5-day course of biosimilar filgrastim provided optimal primary prophylaxis against FN post-chemotherapy TAC in patients with breast cancer. The clinical relevance of the highest FN incidence in the lenograstim cohort needs further attention.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia

AIMS

Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

METHODS

A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

RESULTS

Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Methods

Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach.

Results

Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days’ filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days’ filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days’ filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim.

Conclusion

In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted.

RESULTS

Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.

Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to prevent febrile neutropenia and related complications in cancer patients in clinical practice: A systematic review

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious side-effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Several clinical trials and observational studies have evaluated the effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) on risk of FN and related complications; however, no systematic reviews have focused on effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Here, we perform a systematic review assessing the comparative effectiveness of prophylaxis with a long-acting G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) versus short-acting G-CSFs (filgrastim, lenograstim, and filgrastim biosimilars) in cancer patients in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

A systematic review was performed based on a pre-specified protocol and was consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (2009) and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (2011). MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published from January 2002 to June 2014. Congress databases (MASCC/ASCO/ESMO) and Google Scholar were searched for abstracts published from January 2012 to August 2014. Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®), lenograstim and nivestim (a filgrastim biosimilar) were the only short-acting G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) was the only long-acting G-CSF described in eligible studies. Outcomes of interest were FN, FN-related hospitalisation and other FN-related complications (death, chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, antimicrobial treatment, severe neutropenia and costs and resource use).

Results

Of 1259 unique records identified, 18 real-world observational studies met predefined inclusion criteria; 15 were retrospective studies, and 3 were prospective studies. Multiple tumour types, chemotherapy regimens and geographical regions were included. Seven studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN; risk of FN among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in three studies, numerically lower in three studies, and numerically higher in one study. Six studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN-related hospitalisation; risk of FN-related hospitalisation among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in all six studies, though some variation was seen in subanalyses. Data for other outcomes were sparse with available results being generally consistent with the results seen for risk of FN and FN-related hospitalisation.

Conclusions

Based on the findings from this review of real-world comparative effectiveness studies, risks of FN and FN-related complications were generally lower for prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs.

Results of a prospective dose intensity and neutropenia prophylaxis evaluation programme (DIEPP) in cancer patients at risk of febrile neutropenia due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and use of pegfilgrastim in cancer patients with high overall risk of FN and to investigate the relationship between granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) guideline adherence and chemotherapy delivery in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Austria.

METHODS

Dose Intensity Evaluation Program and Prophylaxis (DIEPP) was a multicentre, prospective, and observational study of adult patients with breast cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer, gastric cancer, and ovarian cancer, who received chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support and who had an overall risk of FN ≥ 20 %. Physicians assessed patient risk factors and reported their reasons for administering pegfilgrastim.

RESULTS

Patients were enrolled from 113 centres in CEE and Austria between August 2010 and July 2013, and data were analysed from 1072 patients. The most common tumour types were breast cancer (50 %) and lymphoma (24 %). FN incidence was 5 % overall. FN occurred in 3 % of patients (28/875) who received pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis (PP) and 13 % of patients (19/142) who received it as secondary prophylaxis (SP); 79 % of FN events in SP patients occurred in the first cycle before pegfilgrastim was administered. The three most frequently chosen reasons for using pegfilgrastim were planned chemotherapy with high FN risk, female gender, and advanced disease. Overall, 40 % of patients received > 90 % of their planned chemotherapy dose within 3 days of the planned schedule.

CONCLUSION

FN incidence was relatively low with pegfilgrastim PP in patients with a physician-assessed overall FN risk of ≥ 20 %. The most important reasons for pegfilgrastim use were consistent with the investigators' risk assessment and international guidelines.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice

Purpose

Accumulating evidence suggests that not all cancer chemotherapy patients who receive first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis continue to receive it in subsequent cycles and that these patients may be subsequently at higher risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Additional evidence from US clinical practice is warranted.

Methods

Data from two US private healthcare claims repositories were employed. The source population comprised adults who received “intermediate-risk” or “high-risk” chemotherapy regimens for solid cancers or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. From the source population, all patients who did not receive second-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis ("comparison patients”) were matched (1:1) to those who received it (“pegfilgrastim patients”) based on cancer, regimen, and propensity score. Odds ratios (OR) for FN—broad and narrow definitions—during the second chemotherapy cycle were estimated for comparison patients versus pegfilgrastim patients using generalized estimating equations.

Results

A total of 2245 comparison patients (5.3 % of source population) were matched to pegfilgrastim patients; cohorts were well-balanced on baseline characteristics. Second-cycle FN incidence proportions for comparison and pegfilgrastim patients were 3.8 versus 2.2 % based on broad definition and 2.6 versus 0.8 % based on narrow definition; corresponding OR were 1.7 (95 % CI 1.2–2.5, p = 0.002) and 3.5 (95 % CI 2.0–6.0, p < 0.001). Results were similar within cancer/regimen-subgroups and were robust when using alternative methods for confounding adjustment.

Conclusions

In this retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients who received first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice, a clinically relevant minority did not receive second-cycle prophylaxis. Second-cycle FN odds among this subset were significantly higher than they were among those who continued prophylaxis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-015-3039-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are the most common and most severe bone marrow toxicities of chemotherapy. Recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), both daily (filgrastim and biosimilars, and lenograstim) and long-acting (pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim) formulations, are currently available to counteract the negative consequences of these side effects.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this article is to review the physiopathology of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its consequences, and the current evidence regarding the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as a strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors.

EXPERT OPINION

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its complications are still a major health-care concern, and the inappropriate employment of G-CSFs in clinical practice can partially explain its burden. Pegfilgrastim has pharmacological advantages over daily G-CSFs that makes it easily administrable, thus reducing the chance of incorrect delivery. The once-per-cycle administration might explain the findings derived from observational studies suggesting a possible superior efficacy of pegfilgrastim over daily G-CSFs. For patients at higher risk of failure with daily G-CSF prophylaxis (e.g. risk of non-compliance, difficulties on performing regular hemograms, high risk of developing febrile neutropenia), pegfilgrastim might be the most appropriate option.

Prophylactic long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) in gynecologic malignancies: an oncologic expert statement

We reviewed the status of the use of the prophylactic long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim in gynecologic malignancies. Long-acting G-CSFs should not be used in weekly regimens. Filgrastim is not indicated in patients with febrile and/or severe neutropenia after administration of long-acting G-CSF in the same cycle. One study has shown a moderate effect on febrile neutropenia of ciprofloxacin when co-administered with pegfilgrastim. There is broad evidence from meta-analyses that pegfilgrastim effectively reduces severe neutropenia. In parallel, its adverse effects have been studied extensively. All-cause mortality was significantly reduced by pegfilgrastim. The glycopegylated long-acting G-CSF, lipegfilgrastim has demonstrated antineutropenic efficacy similar to that of pegfilgrastimin in one breast cancer study. In another pivitol non-small cell lung cancer study, impaired survival was observed in the lipegfilgrastim group during the first 30 days of study. The European Medicines Agency claimed more profound safety data to be provided for lipegfilgrastim by 2017.

Attitudes and practice patterns for maintaining relative dose intensity of chemotherapy in outpatient clinics: results of a Japanese web-based survey

Background

This analysis was undertaken to evaluate the practice patterns of Japanese physicians regarding curative-intent chemotherapy, especially in outpatient settings, and to define factors negatively affecting the maintenance of relative dose intensity (RDI).

Methods

We performed a web-based questionnaire survey of Japanese physicians involved in malignant lymphoma chemotherapy (Group ML) or in breast cancer chemotherapy (Group BC). The questionnaire inquired how they manage low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) caused by initial chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(DLBCL) or by adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in an outpatient setting.

Results

Valid responses were obtained from 185 physicians in Group ML and 160 in Group BC. In Group ML, 76 % (n = 141) of the physicians were board-certified hematologists, while 82 % (n = 131) of the physicians in Group BC were board-certified surgeons. A significantly higher proportion of physicians in Group ML responded that “dose reduction is not required for the subsequent course of chemotherapy after the first episode of FN” than in Group BC (ML versus BC; 77 % versus 31 %; P < 0.001). Significantly higher proportions of physicians in Group ML were more likely to prophylactically administer antibiotics or granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF; ML versus BC; antibiotics: 36 % versus 26 %, P = 0.049; G-CSF: 25 % versus 16 %, P = 0.047). Eighty six percent (n = 159) of Group ML and 70 % (n = 112) of Group BC responded that “emergency outpatient unit is open at all hours”.

Conclusions

Japanese physicians are more likely to administer reduced doses of chemotherapy to patients with breast cancer than to patients with malignant lymphoma. Supportive infrastructures should be improved to ensure the provision of adequate chemotherapy to all cancer patients.

The effects of short-term fasting on tolerance to (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer patients: a randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND

Preclinical evidence shows that short-term fasting (STF) protects healthy cells against side effects of chemotherapy and makes cancer cells more vulnerable to it. This pilot study examines the feasibility of STF and its effects on tolerance of chemotherapy in a homogeneous patient group with early breast cancer (BC).

METHODS

Eligible patients had HER2-negative, stage II/III BC. Women receiving (neo)-adjuvant TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) were randomized to fast 24 h before and after commencing chemotherapy, or to eat according to the guidelines for healthy nutrition. Toxicity in the two groups was compared. Chemotherapy-induced DNA damage in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was quantified by the level of γ-H2AX analyzed by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were included of whom seven were randomized to the STF arm. STF was well tolerated. Mean erythrocyte- and thrombocyte counts 7 days post-chemotherapy were significantly higher (P = 0.007, 95 % CI 0.106-0.638 and P = 0.00007, 95 % CI 38.7-104, respectively) in the STF group compared to the non-STF group. Non-hematological toxicity did not differ between the groups. Levels of γ-H2AX were significantly increased 30 min post-chemotherapy in CD45 + CD3- cells in non-STF, but not in STF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

STF during chemotherapy was well tolerated and reduced hematological toxicity of TAC in HER2-negative BC patients. Moreover, STF may reduce a transient increase in, and/or induce a faster recovery of DNA damage in PBMCs after chemotherapy. Larger studies, investigating a longer fasting period, are required to generate more insight into the possible benefits of STF during chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01304251 , March 2011.

A randomized, multicenter, phase II/III study to determine the optimal dose and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegteograstim (GCPGC) on chemotherapy-induced neutropenia compared to pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients: KCSG PC10-09

PURPOSE

Pegylated granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is frequently used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients undergoing chemotherapy with a high risk of myelosuppression. This phase II/III study was conducted to determine the adequate dose of pegteograstim, a new formulation of pegylated G-CSF, and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegteograstim compared to pegfilgrastim.

METHODS

In the phase II part, 60 breast cancer patients who were undergoing DA (docetaxel and doxorubicin) or TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy were randomly selected to receive a single subcutaneous injection of 3.6 or 6.0 mg pegteograstim on day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle. The phase III part was seamlessly started to compare the dose of pegteograstim at selected in phase II with 6.0 mg pegfilgrastim in 117 breast cancer patients. The primary endpoint of both the phase II and III parts was the duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the chemotherapy cycle 1.

RESULTS

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia for the 3.6 mg pegteograstim (n = 33) was similar to that for the 6.0 mg pegteograstim (n = 26) (1.97 ± 1.79 days vs. 1.54 ± 0.95 days, p = 0.33). The 6.0 mg pegteograstim was selected to be compared with the 6.0 mg pegfilgrastim in the phase III part. In the phase III part, the primary analysis revealed that the efficacy of pegteograstim (n = 56) was non-inferior to that of pegfilgrastim (n = 59) [duration of grade 4 neutropenia, 1.64 ± 1.18 days vs. 1.80 ± 1.05 days; difference, -0.15 ± 1.11 (p = 0.36, 97.5 % confidence intervals = 0.57 and 0.26)]. The time to the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery of pegteograstim (≥2000/μL) was significantly shorter than that of pegfilgrastim (8.85 ± 1.45 days vs. 9.83 ± 1.20 days, p < 0.0001). Other secondary endpoints showed no significant difference between the two groups. The safety profiles of the two groups did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegteograstim was shown to be as effective as pegfilgrastim in the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in the breast cancer patients who were undergoing chemotherapy with a high risk of myelosuppression.

Exploratory analysis of candidate germline gene polymorphisms in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy and associations with febrile neutropenia

AIM

SNPs may be associated with (side) effects of chemotherapy and may be useful as biomarkers to predict febrile neutropenia.

PATIENTS & METHODS

187 DNA samples extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from patients with stage II/III HER2-negative breast cancer were genotyped.

RESULTS

Candidate SNPs were selected and explored for association with febrile neutropenia and/or pathological complete response. TT genotype of 388 C>T in FGFR4 (rs351855) had a tendency toward higher incidence of febrile neutropenia during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared with the CT (p = 0.383) genotype and compared with the CC genotype (p = 0.068).

CONCLUSION

The TT genotype of 388 C>T FGFR4 may be related to incidence of febrile neutropenia during neoadjuvant TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy and is possibly useful as a patient-related risk factor when assessing febrile neutropenia risk. Original submitted 23 January 2015; Revision submitted 26 May 2015.

Multicentre, Prospective Observational Study of Pegfilgrastim Primary Prophylaxis in Patients at High Risk of Febrile Neutropenia in Poland: PROFIL Study

Aim of the study

PROFIL was a prospective observational study conducted to investigate physicians’ evaluation of febrile neutropenia (FN) risk and reasons for giving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis (PP) in routine clinical practice in Poland.

Material and methods

Adult cancer patients treated with chemotherapy (CT), assessed by investigators as having high overall FN risk, and who received pegfilgrastim in cycle 1 were enrolled between 03/2009 and 09/2010. Investigators assessed FN risk of the CT regimen, individual risk factors, and overall FN risk, and were asked to provide the most important reasons for providing pegfilgrastim PP. Investigator-assessed CT FN risk was compared with guideline classification.

Results

Data were analysed from 1006 breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. The most important reasons for using pegfilgrastim PP were high CT FN risk and advanced disease; these were consistent across tumour types and treatment intent. The investigators generally assessed high CT FN risk in agreement with guideline classification. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4% of patients, most commonly in HL, NHL, and patients with advanced disease.

Conclusions

High CT FN risk and advanced stage of disease were found to be the most important reasons for providing pegfilgrastim PP by physicians in Poland.