UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: a systematic review


Pfeil, Alena M; Allcott, Kim; Pettengell, Ruth; von Minckwitz, Gunter; Schwenkglenks, Matthias; Szabo, Zsolt (2015). Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: a systematic review. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23(2):525-545.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pegfilgrastim was introduced over a decade ago. Other long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have recently been developed. We systematically reviewed the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neutropenia prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts from key congresses. Studies of long-acting G-CSFs for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) were identified by two independent reviewers. Abstracts and full texts were assessed for final inclusion; risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's tool. Effectiveness and safety results were extracted according to study type and G-CSF used.
RESULTS: Of the 839 articles identified, 41 articles representing different studies met the eligibility criteria. In five randomised controlled trials, 11 clinical trials and 17 observational studies across several tumour types and chemotherapy regimens, pegfilgrastim was used alone or compared with daily G-CSF, no G-CSF, no upfront pegfilgrastim or placebo. Studies generally reported lower incidence of CIN (4/7 studies), FN (11/14 studies), hospitalisations (9/13 studies), antibiotic use (6/7 studies) and adverse events (2/5 studies) with pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, no upfront pegfilgrastim or no G-CSF. Eight studies evaluated other long-acting G-CSFs; most (5/8) were compared to pegfilgrastim and involved patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel-based therapy. Efficacy and safety profiles of balugrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable to pegfilgrastim in phase 3 studies. Efficacy and safety of other long-acting G-CSFs were mixed.
CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim reduced the incidence of FN and CIN compared with no prophylaxis. Most studies showed better efficacy and effectiveness for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim. Efficacy and safety profiles of lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were similar to pegfilgrastim.

PURPOSE: Pegfilgrastim was introduced over a decade ago. Other long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have recently been developed. We systematically reviewed the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neutropenia prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts from key congresses. Studies of long-acting G-CSFs for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) were identified by two independent reviewers. Abstracts and full texts were assessed for final inclusion; risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's tool. Effectiveness and safety results were extracted according to study type and G-CSF used.
RESULTS: Of the 839 articles identified, 41 articles representing different studies met the eligibility criteria. In five randomised controlled trials, 11 clinical trials and 17 observational studies across several tumour types and chemotherapy regimens, pegfilgrastim was used alone or compared with daily G-CSF, no G-CSF, no upfront pegfilgrastim or placebo. Studies generally reported lower incidence of CIN (4/7 studies), FN (11/14 studies), hospitalisations (9/13 studies), antibiotic use (6/7 studies) and adverse events (2/5 studies) with pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, no upfront pegfilgrastim or no G-CSF. Eight studies evaluated other long-acting G-CSFs; most (5/8) were compared to pegfilgrastim and involved patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel-based therapy. Efficacy and safety profiles of balugrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable to pegfilgrastim in phase 3 studies. Efficacy and safety of other long-acting G-CSFs were mixed.
CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim reduced the incidence of FN and CIN compared with no prophylaxis. Most studies showed better efficacy and effectiveness for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim. Efficacy and safety profiles of lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were similar to pegfilgrastim.

Citations

10 citations in Web of Science®
10 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2015
Deposited On:29 Dec 2014 12:48
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 18:42
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0941-4355
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2457-z
PubMed ID:25284721

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations