Dataset Information

The prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:This study explored the prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for febrile neutropenia (FN) in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS:Patients were randomised into a study group (long-acting G-CSF for all chemotherapy cycles) and a control group (short-acting G-CSF for first cycle and treatment per physician discretion for subsequent cycles) at a ratio of 1:2. The incidences of FN and myelosuppression and the number of clinical visits, medication doses, complete blood count (CBC) tests and adverse events were compared between the two groups. A regression model was used to determine the risk factors for FN. RESULTS:From 30 November 2018 to 1 April 2019, 84 cases were included in the final analysis; there were 24 (28.6%) and 60 (71.4%) patients in the study and control groups, respectively, and 605 chemotherapy cycles. The study group or chemotherapy cycles utilising long-acting G-CSF had significantly fewer utilisations and doses of short-acting G-CSF; clinical visits; CBC tests; and incidences of FN and myelosuppression; and less G-CSF-associated pain. The utilisation of G-CSF was the only independent factor for FN in a binary regression model. CONCLUSION:Long-acting G-CSF could effectively reduce the incidences of FN and myelosuppression and had mild adverse effects in newly diagnosed patients with EOC receiving chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03740464.

SUBMITTER: Li L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6923945 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled study.

Li Lei L Ma Shuiqing S Wu Ming M Tan Xianjie X Zhong Sen S Lang Jinghe J

BMJ supportive & palliative care 20190829 4

<h4>Objective</h4>This study explored the prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for febrile neutropenia (FN) in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were randomised into a study group (long-acting G-CSF for all chemotherapy cycles) and a control group (short-acting G-CSF for first cycle and treatment per physician discretion for subsequent cycles) at a ratio of 1:2. The incidences of FN and myelosuppres ...[more]

PMID: 31467066

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveInappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level.MethodsPatients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed.ResultsOverall, 86,189 patients received ?4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1-60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n?=?400) and in 70% (64.5-73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n?=?400).ConclusionProphylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Eflapegrastim, a novel, long-acting recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), consists of a rhG-CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open-label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1. RESULTS:Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n =?196; pegfilgrastim, n =?210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% (n =?31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% (n =?51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% (p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (-0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority (p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim (p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms. CONCLUSION:These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G-CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.

Dataset Information

The prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled study.

Publications

The prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets