Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Usage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor every 2 days is clinically useful and cost-effective for febrile neutropenia during early courses of chemotherapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In order to analyze the clinical activity and cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), the prophylactic usage of G-CSF in patients treated with a single chemotherapy regimen during early courses was prospectively evaluated.

Methods

Thirty patients with newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with the first course of an R-CHOP regimen were enrolled randomly. After treatment with the first course of chemotherapy, a daily dose of G-CSF (lenograstim, 100 μg) was administered to half (15 cases) of the patients, and a dose of G-CSF (100 μg) was administered every other day to the other half of the patients when leukocytopenia (<1.5 × 109/L) and/or neutropenia (<0.5 × 109/L) occurred. Changes in leukocyte and neutrophil counts, prophylaxis, febrile neutropenia (FN) events, and cost performance between the two groups were analyzed.

Results

No significant difference between the two groups was observed in recoveries of leukocyte and neutrophil counts and evidence of FN. The only difference was the total cost of G-CSF.

Conclusion

We concluded that every-other-day use of G-CSF was as clinically effective for the prophylaxis of FN as the daily use of G-CSF, and economically speaking, the administration of G-CSF every other day should be more beneficial for patients with NHL during early courses of R-CHOP chemotherapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lieschke GJ, Burgess AW (1992) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (1). N Eng J Med 327:28–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Roilides E, Walsh TJ, Pizzo PA et al (1991) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor enhances the phagocytic and bactericidal activity of normal and defective human neutrophils. J Infect Dis 163:579–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Erbe DV, Collins JE, Shen L et al (1990) The effect of cytokines on the expression and function of Fc receptors for IgG on human myeloid cells. Mol Immunol 27:57–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Carulli G (1997) Effects of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration on neutrophil phenotype and functions. Haematologica 82:606–616

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rouveix B, Giroud JP, Levacher M (2001) G-CSF: mode of action and antiinfective activities. Antibiotiques 3:83–89

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH et al (2006) 2006 update of recommendation for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 24:3187–3205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pettengell R, Aapro M, Brusamolino E et al (2009) Implications of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for lymphoma care. Clin Drug Invest 29:491–513

    Google Scholar 

  8. Watts MJ, Addison I, Long SG et al (1997) Crossover study of the haematological effects and pharmacokinetics of glycosylated and non-glycosylated G-CSF in healthy volunteers. Br J Haematol 98:474–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dunn CJ, Goa KL (2000) Lenograstim: an update of its pharmacological properties and use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and related clinical settings. Drugs 59:681–717

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim IH, Park SK, Suh OK et al (2003) Comparison of lenograstim and filgrastim on haematological effects after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation with high-dose chemotherapy. Curr Med Res Opinion 19:753–759

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ataergin S, Arpaci F, Turan M et al (2008) Reduced dose of lenograstim is as efficacious as standard dose of filgrastim for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and transplantation: a randomized study in patients undergoing autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation. Am J Hematol 83:644–648

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Welte K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud MH et al (1996) Filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF): the first 10 years. Blood 15:1907–1929

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kerst JM, de Haas M, van der Schoot CE et al (1993) Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration to healthy volunteers: induction of immunophenotypically and functionally altered neutrophils via an effect on myeloid progenitor cells. Blood 82:3265–3272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Balducci L, Al-Halawani H, Charu V et al (2007) Elderly cancer patients receiving chemotherapy benefit from first-cycle pegfilgrastim. Oncologist 12:1416–1424

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Crawford J, Dale DC, Kuderer NM et al (2008) Risk and timing of neutropenic events in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: the results of a prospective nationwide study of oncology practice. JNCCN 6:109–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lyman GH (2009) Impact of chemotherapy dose intensity on cancer patient outcomes. JNCCN 7:99–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lyman GH, Dale DC, Friedberg J et al (2004) Incidence and predictors of low chemotherapy dose-intensity in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol 22:4302–4311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Holmes A, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S 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 20:727–731

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J et al (2003) A randomized doubleblind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14:29–35

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pinto L, Liu Z, Doan Q et al (2007) Comparison of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim on febrile neutropenia, grade IV neutropenia and bone pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin 23:2283–2295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Siena S, Piccart MJ, Holmes FA et al (2003) A combined analysis of two pivotal randomized trials of a single dose of pegfilgrastim per chemotherapy cycle and daily filgrastim in patients with stage II–IV breast cancer. Oncol Rep 10:715–724

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lyman GH, Lalla A, Barron RL et al (2009) Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States. Clin Ther 31:1092–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The registration number of this trail is 16–23 (approved on June 26, 2004 by the Local Ethical Committee of Clinical Study at Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine).

Conflict of interest

The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Center of Ehime University Hospital, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 7910295, Japan

    Yoshihiro Yakushijin

  2. Department of Bioregulatory Medicine, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 7910295, Japan

    Hisaharu Shikata, Ikue Takaoka, Tamami Horikawa, Kazuhito Takeuchi, Jun Yamanouchi, Taichi Azuma, Hiroshi Narumi & Masaki Yasukawa

  3. Division of Blood Transfusion and Cell Therapy, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 7910295, Japan

    Takaaki Hato

Authors
  1. Yoshihiro Yakushijin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hisaharu Shikata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ikue Takaoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tamami Horikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kazuhito Takeuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jun Yamanouchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Taichi Azuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hiroshi Narumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takaaki Hato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Masaki Yasukawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshihiro Yakushijin.

About this article

Cite this article

Yakushijin, Y., Shikata, H., Takaoka, I. et al. Usage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor every 2 days is clinically useful and cost-effective for febrile neutropenia during early courses of chemotherapy. Int J Clin Oncol 16, 118–124 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-010-0134-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-010-0134-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation