Cargando…

Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) use following chemotherapy by cancer type and febrile neutropenia (FN) risk. METHODS: Using a commercial administrative database, we identified adult patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gawade, Prasad L., Li, Shuling, Henry, David, Smith, Nancy, Belani, Rajesh, Kelsh, Michael A., Bradbury, Brian D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7378111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31919669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05295-2
_version_ 1783562344266203136
author Gawade, Prasad L.
Li, Shuling
Henry, David
Smith, Nancy
Belani, Rajesh
Kelsh, Michael A.
Bradbury, Brian D.
author_facet Gawade, Prasad L.
Li, Shuling
Henry, David
Smith, Nancy
Belani, Rajesh
Kelsh, Michael A.
Bradbury, Brian D.
author_sort Gawade, Prasad L.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) use following chemotherapy by cancer type and febrile neutropenia (FN) risk. METHODS: Using a commercial administrative database, we identified adult patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who initiated chemotherapy with high risk (HR) or intermediate risk (IR) for FN between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017. We describe use of PP-G-CSF, proportion completing all their cycles with pegfilgrastim, timing of pegfilgrastim, and duration of short-acting G-CSF. RESULTS: Among 22,868 patients (breast 11,513; colorectal 3765; lung 4273; ovarian 1287; and NHL 2030), 36.8% received HR and 63.2% received IR (64.4% of whom had ≥ 1 risk factor [RF] for FN). Proportions of patients receiving PP-G-CSF in the first cycle were 76.1%, 28.2%, and 26.4% among patients receiving HR, IR, and IR plus ≥ 1 RF, respectively. Among breast cancer patients receiving HR regimens and initiating PP-pegfilgrastim, 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.2–63.6%) initiating via on-body injector (OBI) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.0–55.8%) initiating via prefilled syringe (PFS) completed all their cycles with OBI and PFS, respectively. Among all cycles with PP-PFS, 8.5% received PFS on the same day as chemotherapy completion. Mean administrations/cycle were 3.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) for filgrastim, 3.0 (SD 1.6) for filgrastim-sndz, and 4.3 (SD 2.5) for tbo-filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: There is under- and mistimed use of PP-G-CSF among patients at HR for FN. Novel pegfilgrastim delivery devices could help breast cancer patients at HR for FN complete all their cycles with timely prophylaxis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05295-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7378111
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73781112020-08-04 Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy Gawade, Prasad L. Li, Shuling Henry, David Smith, Nancy Belani, Rajesh Kelsh, Michael A. Bradbury, Brian D. Support Care Cancer Original Article PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) use following chemotherapy by cancer type and febrile neutropenia (FN) risk. METHODS: Using a commercial administrative database, we identified adult patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who initiated chemotherapy with high risk (HR) or intermediate risk (IR) for FN between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017. We describe use of PP-G-CSF, proportion completing all their cycles with pegfilgrastim, timing of pegfilgrastim, and duration of short-acting G-CSF. RESULTS: Among 22,868 patients (breast 11,513; colorectal 3765; lung 4273; ovarian 1287; and NHL 2030), 36.8% received HR and 63.2% received IR (64.4% of whom had ≥ 1 risk factor [RF] for FN). Proportions of patients receiving PP-G-CSF in the first cycle were 76.1%, 28.2%, and 26.4% among patients receiving HR, IR, and IR plus ≥ 1 RF, respectively. Among breast cancer patients receiving HR regimens and initiating PP-pegfilgrastim, 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.2–63.6%) initiating via on-body injector (OBI) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.0–55.8%) initiating via prefilled syringe (PFS) completed all their cycles with OBI and PFS, respectively. Among all cycles with PP-PFS, 8.5% received PFS on the same day as chemotherapy completion. Mean administrations/cycle were 3.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) for filgrastim, 3.0 (SD 1.6) for filgrastim-sndz, and 4.3 (SD 2.5) for tbo-filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: There is under- and mistimed use of PP-G-CSF among patients at HR for FN. Novel pegfilgrastim delivery devices could help breast cancer patients at HR for FN complete all their cycles with timely prophylaxis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05295-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-01-10 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7378111/ /pubmed/31919669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05295-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gawade, Prasad L.
Li, Shuling
Henry, David
Smith, Nancy
Belani, Rajesh
Kelsh, Michael A.
Bradbury, Brian D.
Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
title Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
title_full Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
title_fullStr Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
title_short Patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
title_sort patterns of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7378111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31919669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05295-2
work_keys_str_mv AT gawadeprasadl patternsofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorprophylaxisinpatientswithcancerreceivingmyelosuppressivechemotherapy
AT lishuling patternsofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorprophylaxisinpatientswithcancerreceivingmyelosuppressivechemotherapy
AT henrydavid patternsofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorprophylaxisinpatientswithcancerreceivingmyelosuppressivechemotherapy
AT smithnancy patternsofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorprophylaxisinpatientswithcancerreceivingmyelosuppressivechemotherapy
AT belanirajesh patternsofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorprophylaxisinpatientswithcancerreceivingmyelosuppressivechemotherapy
AT kelshmichaela patternsofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorprophylaxisinpatientswithcancerreceivingmyelosuppressivechemotherapy
AT bradburybriand patternsofgranulocytecolonystimulatingfactorprophylaxisinpatientswithcancerreceivingmyelosuppressivechemotherapy