Cargando…

Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study

PURPOSE: In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations. METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bokemeyer, Carsten, Gascón, Pere, Aapro, Matti, Ludwig, Heinz, Boccadoro, Mario, Denhaerynck, Kris, Gorray, Michael, Krendyukov, Andriy, Abraham, Ivo, MacDonald, Karen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5403842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28111718
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3572-4
_version_ 1783231465640689664
author Bokemeyer, Carsten
Gascón, Pere
Aapro, Matti
Ludwig, Heinz
Boccadoro, Mario
Denhaerynck, Kris
Gorray, Michael
Krendyukov, Andriy
Abraham, Ivo
MacDonald, Karen
author_facet Bokemeyer, Carsten
Gascón, Pere
Aapro, Matti
Ludwig, Heinz
Boccadoro, Mario
Denhaerynck, Kris
Gorray, Michael
Krendyukov, Andriy
Abraham, Ivo
MacDonald, Karen
author_sort Bokemeyer, Carsten
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations. METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary). RESULTS: Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches). CONCLUSIONS: The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5403842
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54038422017-05-09 Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study Bokemeyer, Carsten Gascón, Pere Aapro, Matti Ludwig, Heinz Boccadoro, Mario Denhaerynck, Kris Gorray, Michael Krendyukov, Andriy Abraham, Ivo MacDonald, Karen Support Care Cancer Original Article PURPOSE: In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations. METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary). RESULTS: Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches). CONCLUSIONS: The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-01-22 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5403842/ /pubmed/28111718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3572-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bokemeyer, Carsten
Gascón, Pere
Aapro, Matti
Ludwig, Heinz
Boccadoro, Mario
Denhaerynck, Kris
Gorray, Michael
Krendyukov, Andriy
Abraham, Ivo
MacDonald, Karen
Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study
title Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study
title_full Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study
title_fullStr Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study
title_full_unstemmed Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study
title_short Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study
title_sort over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the monitor-gcsf study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5403842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28111718
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3572-4
work_keys_str_mv AT bokemeyercarsten overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT gasconpere overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT aapromatti overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT ludwigheinz overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT boccadoromario overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT denhaerynckkris overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT gorraymichael overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT krendyukovandriy overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT abrahamivo overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy
AT macdonaldkaren overandunderprophylaxisforchemotherapyinducedfebrileneutropeniarelativetoevidencebasedguidelinesisassociatedwithdifferencesinoutcomesfindingsfromthemonitorgcsfstudy