Pegfilgrastim +/- ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study.
ABSTRACT TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) is associated with high incidences of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN). This analysis compared the efficacies of four regimens for primary prophylaxis of FN and related toxic effects in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant TAC.
Patients with stage T2-T4 primary breast cancer were scheduled to receive 6-8 cycles of TAC. Primary prophylaxis was: ciprofloxacin 500 mg orally twice daily on days 5-14 (n = 253 patients; 1478 cycles), daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (filgrastim 5 microg/kg/day or lenograstim 150 microg/m(2)/day) on days 5-10 (n = 377; 2400 cycles), pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 2 (n = 305; 1930 cycles), or pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin (n = 321; 1890 cycles).
Pegfilgrastim with/without ciprofloxacin was significantly more effective than daily G-CSF or ciprofloxacin in preventing FN (5% and 7% versus 18% and 22% of patients; all P < 0.001), grade 4 neutropenia, and leukopenia. Pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin completely prevented first cycle FN (P < 0.01 versus pegfilgrastim alone) and fatal neutropenic events.
Ciprofloxacin alone, or daily G-CSF from day 5-10 (as in common practice), provided suboptimal protection against FN and related toxic effects in patients receiving TAC. Pegfilgrastim was significantly more effective in this setting, especially if given with ciprofloxacin.
Article: Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus six days of filgrastim for preventing febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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 > or = 20% FN risk. 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%. 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 Euro 3078, 16.47 years, and 15.32; the corresponding figures for six-day filgrastim were Euro 3033, 16.35 years, and 15.22. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with pegfilgrastim was Euro 409 per life-year gained and Euro 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 Euro 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. 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 Euro 50,000/quality-adjusted life year.Tumori 95(2):219-26. · 0.86 Impact Factor
Article: Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is >or=20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from 'real-world' clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications.Supportive Care in Cancer 02/2010; 18(5):529-41. · 2.09 Impact Factor