A randomised trial of secondary prophylaxis using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor ('SPROG' trial) for maintaining dose intensity of standard adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer by the Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Group and NCRN

Optimal use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis to improve survival in cancer patients receiving treatment : An expert view

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a relatively common complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can prevent FN and chemotherapy dose delays and enable the use of the higher dose intensities associated with a survival benefit; however, G‑CSF is not always used optimally. Five medical oncologists with a special interest in supportive care met to discuss the evidence for prophylaxis with G‑CSF to improve survival in cancer patients, identify reasons why this is not always done, and suggest potential solutions. The dose intensity of chemotherapy is critical for maximizing survival in cancer patients but may be reduced as a result of hematological toxicity, such as FN. Use of G‑CSF has been shown to increase the chances of achieving the planned dose intensity in various cancers, including early-stage breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. All physicians treating cancer patients should consider the use of G‑CSF prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy, paying particular attention to patient-related risk factors.

KEY MESSAGES

Strategies to optimize G‑CSF use include educating medical oncologists and pharmacists on the appropriate use of G‑CSF and informing patients about the efficacy of G‑CSF and its potential adverse effects. It is hoped that the evidence and opinions presented will help to encourage appropriate use of G‑CSF to support cancer patients at risk of FN in achieving the best possible outcomes from chemotherapy.

[Neutropenia - when is GCSF support indicated?]

Many systemic treatments used in genitourinary oncology negatively affect haematopoiesis, thus leading to neutropenia. Neutropenic patients are vulnerable to bacterial, and other infections. Often fever is the only symptom in these patients. Neutropenic fever is a major threat for these patients, as it may lead to life-threatening therapy complications that significantly impair the patient's quality of life, Moreover, it may also worsen the prognosis due to therapy delays or necessary dose modifications. Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF), which can improve neutrophil granulocyte formation, are used both for supportive treatment in febrile neutropenia and for its prophylaxis. The correct indication for such GCSF support depends on the general risk of febrile neutropenia of the therapy used, as well as on individual patient factors and the treatment intent (palliative vs. curative). Based on the current recommendations both of the German and international guidelines, this article aims to provide an up-to-date and practice-oriented overview of the use of GCSF in uro-oncology.

Pegfilgrastim on febrile neutropenia in pediatric and adolescent cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is no meta-analysis about the effects of pegfilgrastim on the occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric/adolescent cancer patients. The study explored the efficacy of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN in children/adolescents with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before April 7, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of FN. Effect size (ES) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcome. The ES represented the rate of FN, and the STATA 'metaprop' command was used to synthesize the rate.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, comprising 167 patients and 550 courses of treatment. There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN in children receiving chemotherapy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.20-2.23, P = 0.520). In patients receiving pegfilgrastim, the rate of FN was 25.6% (95% CI: 14.9%-36.3%), the rate of grade 4 FN was 38.3% (95% CI: 19.2%-59.5%), the rate of severe neutropenia (SN) was 40.5% (95% CI: 35.1%-46.1%), and the rate of treatment delays due to FN was 4.8% (95% CI: 0.8%-11.3%).

DISCUSSION

The number of studies that could be included was small; therefore, a specific type of cancer or a specific treatment could be studied. Heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN. The use of pegfilgrastim was still associated with rates of FN, grade 4 FN, severe neutropenia, and treatment delays due to FN in pediatric cancer patients.

Impact of G-CSF Prophylaxis on Chemotherapy Dose-Intensity, Link Between Dose-Intensity and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, few data are available on the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis and its impact on dose-intensity (DI), or the link between DI and progression-free survival (PFS). This study assessed the impact of G-CSF prophylaxis on the DI received by patients and the relationship between full DI and PFS according to chemotherapy regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients from three first-line randomized phase II clinical trials were included in this retrospective cohort. G-CSF prophylaxis groups were identified and balanced according to baseline characteristics using a propensity score. Patients were classified into 2 treatment groups (FOLFIRINOX vs FOLFIRI/nab-paclitaxel (NAB)). DI was a binary variable (full/reduced). Adverse events were defined using NCI-CTCAE v4.0.

RESULTS

Of the 498 patients, 154 (31%) were in "prophylaxis" group; 179 (36%) were treated by FOLFIRINOX and 319 (64%) by FOLFIRI/NAB. In FOLFIRINOX group, G-CSF prophylaxis was significantly associated with a higher rate of full DI (OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.52-16.90; P < .01) while in FOLFIRI/NAB group, it was significantly associated with a lower rate of full DI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.83; P = .03). Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS (FOLFIRINOX group: HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.16; P = .27; FOLFIRI/NAB group: HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11; P = .22).

CONCLUSION

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was associated with a higher rate of full DI with FOLFIRINOX. Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS. These results need to be confirmed prospectively.

Comparative Study of Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim Using the EudraVigilance Database

Simple Summary

The most commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) were obtained and analyzed from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. Frequently reported ADRs for FIL and PEG-F are pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. No statistical difference in the probability of bone pain between FIL and PEG-F was observed. To further depict the safety of FIL and PEG-F, there is a further need to examine the real-life data.

Abstract

The primary prophylaxis with filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) is recommended to decrease the severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). The commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with FIL and PEG-F is bone pain. ADRs pertaining to FIL and PEG-F were extracted from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. The Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) obtained from EV database that reported FIL and PEG-F as the suspected drug were analyzed. Registered ADRs (from the groups “General disorders and administration site conditions”, “Blood and lymphatic system disorders”, “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” and “Investigations”) for FIL and PEG-F were collected from EV database from 2007 to 5 June 2021. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to calculate ICSRs with most common ADRs related to FIL and PEG-F. A total of 17,403 ICSRs described the incidence of most common ADRs of FIL and PEG-F. The commonly reported ADRs for both drugs were pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The odds ratio of ICSRs belonging to the System Organ Class (SOC) “Investigations” (ROR 1.01 (CI 0.93–1.10)) revealed no significant difference in FIL and PEG-F. However, for the SOCs (General disorders and administration site conditions” and “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” ((ROR 1.14 (CI 1.06–1.21); ROR 1.21 (CI 1.18–1.32), respectively), an increased reporting probability with PEG-F was found. The authors reported a lower reporting probability for the SOC “Blood and lymphatic system disorders” for FIL versus PEG-F (ROR 0.75 (CI 0.70–0.80)). Our results have demonstrated that the occurrence of bone pain was similar with FIL and PEG-F. For the incidence of pyrexia and back pain, PEG-F was associated with a higher reporting probability as compared to FIL. However, the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was higher in FIL compared to PEG-F. Further evaluation of data from real life is needed.

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

Clinical Outcomes of Secondary Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Breast Cancer Patients at a Risk of Neutropenia with Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy has been a standard regimen for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) with an intermediate risk (10–20%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). Secondary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is considered in patients receiving AC-based chemotherapy; however, relevant studies are limited. Here, we retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 320 patients who completed adjuvant AC-based chemotherapy from September 2016 to September 2020. Approximately 46.6% of the patients developed severe neutropenic events (SNE) during AC-based chemotherapy. Secondary prophylaxis of G-CSF reduced the risk of recurrent SNE (p < 0.01) and the relative dose intensity (RDI) < 85% (p = 0.03) in patients who had experienced SNE during AC-based chemotherapy. Age ≥ 65 years (p = 0.02) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) > 60 IU/L (p = 0.04) were significant risk factors for RDI < 85%. The incidences of FN, grade 4 neutropenia, unscheduled hospitalization, and interruption to the dosing regimen were reduced in patients administered secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF (before vs. after administration: FN, 19.4% vs. 4.6%; grade 4 neutropenia, 86.1% vs. 14.8%; unscheduled hospitalization, 75.9% vs. 11.1%; interruption to the dosing regimen, 18.5% vs. 8.3%). This study indicated the importance of active intervention of G-CSF use to prevent recurrent SNE and improve clinical outcomes in patients with breast cancer who receive AC-based chemotherapy.

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.

Introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim in France: Economic analysis of switching from originator

Objectives

To assess the economic impact of introducing biosimilar pegfilgrastim compared to the current standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) practice in France.

Methods

A budget impact model was developed to investigate the impact of introducing pegfilgrastim biosimilar over 5 years. The model analysed drug acquisition costs, ambulatory costs, as well as costs associated with poor outcomes, and compared the current standard practice of long-acting and short-acting G-CSF to a revised practice including pegfilgrastim biosimilar in addition to standard practice treatments. The cost of switching to pegfilgrastim biosimilar, within a pharmacy setting, was analysed within the model using data from a survey of French pharmacists.

Results

The budget impact model calculated a cost saving of €51,007,531 over 5 years switching from the current standard practice to pegfilgrastim biosimilar. A sensitivity analysis accounting for variation in pegfilgrastim biosimilar uptake of 1) 15% in year 1 and 1% in years 2–5 and 2) 15% in years 1–5, estimated savings ranging between €29,377,784 and €79,847,194, respectively. A further analysis predicted cost savings of €287,344,835 over 5 years with the extension of pegfilgrastim biosimilar, at an uptake of 15% in year 1 and 7% in years 2–4, to both long-acting and short-acting G-CSF groups compared to unchanged current practice.

Conclusions

The introduction of pegfilgrastim biosimilar will help to reduce cost and alleviate some of the financial pressure on the French healthcare system.

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.

In Vivo Administration of Recombinant Human Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Increases the Immune Effectiveness of Dendritic Cell-Based Cancer Vaccination

Significant recent advances in cancer immunotherapeutics include the vaccination of cancer patients with tumor antigen-associated peptide-pulsed dendritic cells (DCs). DC vaccines with homogeneous, mature, and functional activities are required to achieve effective acquired immunity; however, the yield of autologous monocyte-derived DCs varies in each patient. Priming with a low dose of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) 16-18 h prior to apheresis resulted in 50% more harvested monocytes, with a significant increase in the ratio of CD11c⁺CD80⁺ DCs/apheresed monocytes. The detection of antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes after Wilms' tumor 1-pulsed DC vaccination was higher in patients treated with rhG-CSF than those who were not, based on immune monitoring using tetramer analysis. Our study is the first to report that DC vaccines for cancer immunotherapy primed with low-dose rhG-CSF are expected to achieve higher acquired immunogenicity.

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.

The dark side of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor: a supportive therapy with potential to promote tumour progression

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is one of several cytokines that can expand and mobilize haematopoietic precursor cells from bone marrow. In particular, G-CSF mobilizes neutrophils when the host is challenged by infection or tissue damage. Severe neutropenia, or febrile neutropenia is a life-threatening event that can be mitigated by administration of G-CSF. Consequently, G-CSF has been used to support patients undergoing chemotherapy who would otherwise require dose reduction due to neutropenia. Over the past 10-15 years it has become increasingly apparent, in preclinical tumour growth and metastasis models, that G-CSF can support tumour progression by mobilization of tumour-associated neutrophils which consequently promote tumour dissemination and metastasis. With the increasing use of G-CSF in the clinic, it is pertinent to ask if there is any evidence of a similar promotion of tumour progression in patients. Here, we have reviewed the preclinical and clinical data on the potential contribution of G-CSF to tumour progression. We conclude that, whilst the evidence for a promotion of metastasis is strong in preclinical models and that limited data indicate that high serum G-CSF levels in patients are associated with poorer prognosis, no studies published so far have revealed evidence of increased tumour progression associated with supportive G-CSF use during chemotherapy in patients. Analysis of G-CSF receptor positive cohorts within supportive trials, as well as studies of the role of G-CSF blockade in appropriate tumours in the absence of chemotherapy could yield clinically translatable findings.

Model-based optimization of G-CSF treatment during cytotoxic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although G-CSF is widely used to prevent or ameliorate leukopenia during cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still under debate and depends on many therapy parameters such as dosing and timing of cytotoxic drugs and G-CSF, G-CSF pharmaceuticals used and individual risk factors of patients.

METHODS

We integrate available biological knowledge and clinical data regarding cell kinetics of bone marrow granulopoiesis, the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of G-CSF applications (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) into a comprehensive model. The model explains leukocyte time courses of more than 70 therapy scenarios comprising 10 different cytotoxic drugs. It is applied to develop optimized G-CSF schedules for a variety of clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

Clinical trial results showed validity of model predictions regarding alternative G-CSF schedules. We propose modifications of G-CSF treatment for the chemotherapies 'BEACOPP escalated' (Hodgkin's disease), 'ETC' (breast cancer), and risk-adapted schedules for 'CHOP-14' (aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in elderly patients).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that we established a model of human granulopoiesis under chemotherapy which allows predictions of yet untested G-CSF schedules, comparisons between them, and optimization of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim treatment. As a general rule of thumb, G-CSF treatment should not be started too early and patients could profit from filgrastim treatment continued until the end of the chemotherapy cycle.

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%.

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.