Article

Comparison of pegfilgrastim on day 2 vs. day 4 as primary prophylaxis of intense dose-dense chemotherapy in patients with node-positive primary breast cancer within the prospective, multi-center GAIN study: (GBG 33).

German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg, Germany.
Supportive Care in Cancer (Impact Factor: 2.09). 10/2010; 19(11):1789-95. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-010-1020-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Preliminary data suggest that pegfilgrastim given on day 4 (P4) might be superior to pegfilgrastim on day 2 (P2) in reducing grade 4 leucopenia.
Patients with node-positive primary breast cancer receiving epirubicin-paclitaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy were randomized to receive P2 versus P4. Primary endpoint was leucopenia grade 4, assuming a risk reduction of 50% with P4 from 50% in P2 to 25% with P4.
Three-hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to P2 (n = 174) versus P4 (n = 177). The rate of leucopenia (grade 4) was 47.1% with P2 and 42.0% with P4 (p = 0.387), neutropenia (grade 3 + 4) was 47.9% versus 40.8% (p = 0.337), FN was 4.7% versus 8.0% (p = 0.271), and infections was 29.9% versus 25.4% (p = 0.404), respectively.
This study failed to demonstrate that pegfilgrastim on day 4 was more efficacious than on day 2 with respect to grade 4 leucopenia (the primary endpoint), febrile neutropenia, or infections.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
71 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical practice adherence to current guidelines that recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for patients at high (≥20 %) overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) was evaluated. Adult patients with breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), or ovarian cancer were enrolled if myelotoxic chemotherapy was planned, and they had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk ≥20 %. The primary outcome was FN incidence. In total, 1,347 patients were analysed (breast cancer, n = 829; NSCLC, n = 224; SCLC, n = 137; ovarian cancer, n = 157). Patients with breast cancer exhibited fewer individual FN risk factors than patients with other cancers and were far more likely to have received a high-FN-risk chemotherapy regimen. However, a substantial proportion of all patients (45-80 % across tumour types) did not receive G-CSF PP in alignment with investigator risk assessment and guideline recommendations. FN occurred in 127 patients overall (9 %, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8-11 %), and incidence was higher in SCLC (15 %) than other tumour types (8 % in ovarian and NSCLC, 9 % in breast cancer). A post hoc analysis of G-CSF use indicated that G-CSF prophylaxis was not given within the recommended timeframe after chemotherapy (within 1-3 days) or was not continued across all cycles in 39 % of patients. FN risk assessment was predominantly based on clinical judgement and individual risk factors, and guidelines regarding G-CSF PP for patients at high FN risk were not consistently followed. Improved education of physicians may enable more fully informed neutropenia management in patients with solid tumours.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2013; · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies. We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines. We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups. Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.
    Annals of Oncology 03/2014; · 7.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bi-weekly (R)-CHOP therapy is one of the standard treatmentS for elderly patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma, but it is only feasible with supportive G-CSF treatment. In the trials of the DSHNHL, either unpegylated G-CSF was given daily over 7 or 10 days or pegylated G-CSF was applied at day 4 of each cycle. These schedules were planned on the basis of simulations of a biomathematical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model. By analysing the observed data, we investigated whether our model predictions were correct and whether even better schedules can be proposed. We used data on 249 matched patients of two prospective trials, RICOVER-60 and PEGFILGRASTIM. The three G-CSF-schedules showed similar outcomes regarding leukocytopenia, infections and days in hospital, with pegylated G-CSF having slightly but not significantly better scores in all three endpoints. Regarding pegylated G-CSF, the best timing is predicted to be any day between days 4 and 7. With respect to unpegylated G-CSF, the starting day is less important, but it should be continued until the end of each cycle.The three G-CSF-schedules are interchangeable in (R)-CHOP-14 for elderly patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Our model correctly predicts time courses of leukocytes. Further model predictions are presented, which can be tested in subsequent clinical trials.
    Annals of Hematology 07/2013; · 2.87 Impact Factor