Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:182
|
作者
Cooper, Katy L. [1 ]
Madan, Jason [2 ]
Whyte, Sophie [1 ]
Stevenson, Matt D. [1 ]
Akehurst, Ron L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res ScHARR, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Acad Unit Primary Hlth Care, Bristol, Avon, England
关键词
SINGLE-ADMINISTRATION PEGFILGRASTIM; PATIENTS RECEIVING CHEMOTHERAPY; ADVANCED BREAST-CANCER; NON-HODGKINS-LYMPHOMA; ELDERLY-PATIENTS; DAILY FILGRASTIM; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; DOUBLE-BLIND; OPEN-LABEL; PHASE-III;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2407-11-404
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results: Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98). Conclusions: Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Colony-stimulating factors: Clinical evidence for treatment and prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia
    Raposo C.G.
    Marín Á.P.
    Barón M.G.
    Clinical and Translational Oncology, 2006, 8 (10) : 729 - 734
  • [22] Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years
    Edelsberg, John
    Weycker, Derek
    Bensink, Mark
    Bowers, Charles
    Lyman, Gary H.
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2020, 36 (03) : 483 - 495
  • [23] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF GRANULOCYTE COLONY-STIMULATING FACTORS FOR THE PROPHYLAXIS OF CHEMOTHERAPY-INDUCED FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA IN PATIENTS WITH BREAST CANCER IN GREECE
    Kourlaba, G.
    Gourzoulidis, G.
    Aravantinos, G.
    Athanasiadis, I
    Lyman, G. H.
    Villa, G.
    Papagiannopoulou, V
    Tritaki, G.
    Maniadakis, N.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2015, 18 (07) : A456 - A456
  • [24] Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan
    Tseng, Tzu-Hsuan
    Chiang, Shao-Chin
    Hsu, Jason C.
    Ko, Yu
    PLOS ONE, 2024, 19 (06):
  • [25] Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the prevention of febrile neutropenia: review of cost-effectiveness models
    Fust, Kelly
    Parthan, Anju
    Maschio, Michael
    Gu, Qing
    Li, Xiaoyan
    Lyman, Gary H.
    Tzivelekis, Spiros
    Villa, Guillermo
    Weinstein, Milton C.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2017, 17 (01) : 39 - 52
  • [26] Side effects of using granulocyte-colony stimulating factors as prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients: A systematic review
    Lapidari, Pietro
    Vaz-Luis, Ines
    Di Meglio, Antonio
    CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY, 2021, 157
  • [27] Clinical practice in febrile neutropenia risk assessment and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in Poland
    Wojtukiewicz, Marek
    Chmielowska, Ewa
    Filipczyk-Cisarz, Emilia
    Krzemieniecki, Krzysztof
    Lesniewski-Kmak, Krzysztof
    Litwiniuk, Maria M.
    Wieruszewska-Kowalczyk, Karolina
    Kosno-Kruszewska, Elzbieta
    WSPOLCZESNA ONKOLOGIA-CONTEMPORARY ONCOLOGY, 2014, 18 (06): : 419 - 424
  • [28] Study Inclusion Criteria and Presentation of Results in a Meta-Analysis of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia
    Lathia, Nina
    Isogai, Pierre K.
    Cheung, Matthew C.
    Mittmann, Nicole
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (36) : E762 - E763
  • [29] Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis
    Wang, Yong
    Chen, Lin
    Liu, Fen
    Zhao, Ning
    Xu, Liyao
    Fu, Biqi
    Li, Yong
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2019, 9 (1)
  • [30] Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor
    Takamatsu, Yasushi
    ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2015, 26 : 59 - 59