The effectiveness and safety of same-day versus next-day administration of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a systematic review
- 1.1k Downloads
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are commonly used in clinical practice to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN). US and EU prescribing information and treatment guidelines from the NCCN, ASCO, and EORTC specify that pegfilgrastim, a long-acting (LA) G-CSF, should be administered at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Nevertheless, many patients receive LA G-CSFs on the same day as chemotherapy. This systematic literature review evaluated the relative merits of same-day versus next-day dosing of LA G-CSFs.
A broad Ovid MEDLINE® and Embase® literature search was conducted that examined all publications indexed before May 9, 2016 that compared same-day versus next-day LA G-CSF administration. A congress abstract literature search included congresses from January 1, 2011 to April 6, 2016. The parameters for this review were prospectively delineated in a research protocol and adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines.
The first part of the systematic literature search identified 1736 publications. After elimination of duplicates, title/abstract screening was conducted on 1440 records, and full text review was conducted on 449 publications. Eleven publications met all criteria and are included in this systematic review; of these, four included data from randomized or single arm prospective studies, and seven were retrospective studies. In most studies included in this review and across a variety of tumor types, administration of pegfilgrastim at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy resulted in improved patient outcomes.
Data from multiple publications support administration of pegfilgrastim at least 1 day after chemotherapy.
KeywordsNeutropenia Pegfilgrastim Filgrastim Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor
The authors thank James Ziobro (funded by Amgen Inc.), and Micah Robinson (Amgen Inc.) for providing medical writing support. This study was funded by Amgen Inc.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Gary H Lyman is the principal investigator on a research grant to Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center from Amgen Inc. Kim Allcott is an employee of Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd., and Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd. has received research funding from Amgen Inc. Jacob Garcia is a former employee of Amgen Inc., is a stockholder in Amgen Inc., and is currently an employee of and stockholder in Juno Therapeutics Inc. Scott Stryker is an employee of and stockholder in Amgen Inc. Yanli Li is an employee of and stockholder in Amgen Inc. Maureen T Reiner is an employee of and stockholder in Amgen Inc. Derek Weycker is an employee of Policy Analysis Inc., and Policy Analysis Inc. has received research funding from Amgen Inc.
- 2.National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. (2009) NCI, NIH, DHHS. NIH publication # 09–7473.Google Scholar
- 6.Amgen (2016) NEUPOGEN® (filgrastim) Prescribing InformationGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kourlaba G, Dimopoulos MA, Pectasides D, Skarlos DV, Gogas H, Pentheroudakis G et al (2015) Comparison of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent neutropenia and maintain dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 23(7):2045–2051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Naeim A, Henk HJ, Becker L, Chia V, Badre S, Li X et al (2013) Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). BMC Cancer 13:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Amgen (2015) NEULASTA® (pegfilgrastim) Prescribing InformationGoogle Scholar
- 13.Weycker D, Wu H, Hagiwara M, Li X, Barron RL (2014) Use of chemotherapy and same-day pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice. Blood 124 (21):4825Google Scholar
- 14.Amgen (2015) NEULASTA® (pegfilgrastim) Summary of Product Characteristics European Medicines AgencyGoogle Scholar
- 16.Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH, Carson KR, Crawford J, Cross SJ et al (2015) Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 33(28):3199–3212Google Scholar
- 17.NCCN (2015) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Myeloid Growth Factors Version 1.2015.Google Scholar
- 18.Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, Dal Lago L, Donnelly JP, Kearney N et al (2011) 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 47(1):8–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Whitworth JM, Matthews KS, Shipman KA, Numnum TM, Kendrick JE, Kilgore LC et al (2009) The safety and efficacy of day 1 versus day 2 administration of pegfilgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 112(3):601–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Burris HA, Belani CP, Kaufman PA, Gordon AN, Schwartzberg LS, Paroly WS et al (2010) Pegfilgrastim on the same day versus next day of chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of four multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase II studies. J Oncol Pract 6(3):133–140CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Li Y, Klippel Z, Shih X, Wang H, Reiner M, Page JH (2016) Trajectory of absolute neutrophil counts in patients treated with pegfilgrastim on the day of chemotherapy versus the day after chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77(4):703–712Google Scholar
- 25.Pagliaro LC, Munsell M, Harris D, Carolla RL, Siefker-Radtke AO (2011) Gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin for patients (pts) with urothelial carcinoma (UC) and renal insufficiency: Preliminary results of a multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol 29 (7_suppl):246Google Scholar
- 26.Siefker-Radtke AO, Campbell MT, Munsell MF, Harris DR, Carolla RL, Pagliaro LC (2016) Front-line treatment with gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin for patients with Unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer and poor renal function: final results from a phase II study. Urology 89:83–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Billingsley CC, Jacobson SN, Crafton SM, Crim AK, Li Q, Hade EM et al (2015) Evaluation of the hematologic safety of same day versus standard administration (24- to 72-hour delay) of pegfilgrastim in gynecology oncology patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25(7):1331–1336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Ibrahim Z, Hughes J, McQuillan A, Baker R, Powell A, Peter M et al (2011) The effect of pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF; Pegfilgrastim, neulasta ) administration timing in relation to the chop or choplike regimen administration timing in non-hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) patients on development of neutropenia. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 7:135–136Google Scholar
- 30.Karol J, Rybicki L, Sweetenham J, Smith MR, Hill BT, Pohlman B et al. (2013) Similar incidence of febrile neutropenia with same-day versus subsequent day G-CSF administration in non-hodgkin lymphoma patients receiving R-CHOP chemotherapy. Blood 122(21):4357Google Scholar
- 31.Linot B, Augereau P, Breheret R, Laccourreye L, Capitain O (2014) Efficacy and safety of early G-CSF administration in patients with head and neck cancer treated by docetaxel-cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF protocol): a retrospective study. Support Care Cancer 22(10):2831–2837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J, Galid A, Guillem V, Gascon P et al (2003) A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14(1):29–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, Jones SE, Shogan J, Savin M et al (2002) Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20(3):727–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Vogel CL, Wojtukiewicz MZ, Carroll RR, Tjulandin SA, Barajas-Figueroa LJ, Wiens BL et al (2005) First and subsequent cycle use of pegfilgrastim prevents febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol 23(6):1178–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar