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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |