International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 619–620 | Cite as

Optimal timing for pegfilgrastim administration in Japanese breast cancer patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapies: response to study by Hayama et al.

  • David H. Henry
  • Derek WeyckerEmail author
  • Mark Bensink
  • Prasad Gawade
  • Rajesh Belani
Letter to the Editor

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially life-threatening side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Recognizing the effectiveness of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) in reducing the risk and consequences of FN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend CSF prophylaxis when FN risk is high (> 20%) based on either the chemotherapy regimen alone or a combination of the chemotherapy regimen and patient risk factors [1]. Among the CSFs currently available in the US, pegfilgrastim—which requires one dose per cycle, and is available in a pre-filled syringe or on-body injector—is by far the most commonly used prophylactic CSF agent in clinical practice [2].

Because pegfilgrastim induces proliferation of myeloid progenitor cells, which may be especially sensitive to myelosuppressive drugs, prescribing information specifies that pegfilgrastim should not be administered between 14 days before and 24 h after administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Moreover,...



Funding for the preparation of this letter was provided by Amgen Inc. to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI).

Conflicts of interest

Mark Bensink Ph.D., M.Sc., M.Ed., Prasad Gawade, Ph.D., and Rajesh Belani, M.D. are employed by Amgen Inc. Derek Weycker, Ph.D. is employed by PAI. David Henry, M.D. is employed by Penn Medicine.


  1. 1.
    Crawford J, Becker PS, Armitage JO, Blayney DW, Chavez J, Curtin P, Dinner S, Fynan T, Gojo I, Griffiths EA, Hough S, Kloth DD, Kuter DJ, Lyman GH, Mably M, Mukherjee S, Patel S, Perez LE, Poust A, Rampal R, Roy V, Rugo HS, Saad AA, Schwartzberg LS, Shayani S, Talbott M, Vadhan-Raj S, Vasu S, Wadleigh M, Westervelt P, Burns JL, Pluchino L. Myeloid growth factors, version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(12):1520–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weycker D, Bensink M, Lonshteyn A, Doroff R, Chandler D. Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by day of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice from 2010 to 2015. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(12):2107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayama T, Sakurai K, Miura K, Washinosu S, Tsuboi S, Uchiike A, Yoshida Y, Takei M. Optimal timing for pegfilgrastim administration in Japanese breast cancer patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapies. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40(5):997–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cullen M, Steven N, Billingham L, Gaunt C, Hastings M, Simmonds P, Stuart N, Rea D, Bower M, Fernando I, Huddart R, Gollins S, Stanley A. Antibacterial prophylaxis after chemotherapy for solid tumors and lymphomas. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(10):988–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loibl S, Mueller V, von Minckwitz G, Conrad B, Koehne CH, Kremers S, Forstbauer H, Linder M, Nekljudova V, Moebus V. 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). Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(11):1789–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Penn Medicine, Abramson Cancer Center, Pennsylvania Hospital, Farm Journal BuildingPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI)BrooklineUSA
  3. 3.Amgen Inc., One Amgen Center DriveThousand OaksUSA

Personalised recommendations