Trends of the use of pegylated granulopoiesis growth factors in clinical practice - single oncology centre experience since 2005
Language English Country Czech Republic Media print
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
40393798
DOI
10.48095/ccko2023s119
PII: 138998
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Neutropenia, lipegfilgrastim, pegfilrastim, prevention, side effects, treatment,
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor * therapeutic use MeSH
- Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia * prevention & control MeSH
- Filgrastim * therapeutic use MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Neoplasms * drug therapy MeSH
- Polyethylene Glycols * therapeutic use MeSH
- Recombinant Proteins MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor * MeSH
- Filgrastim * MeSH
- pegfilgrastim MeSH Browser
- pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor MeSH Browser
- Polyethylene Glycols * MeSH
- Recombinant Proteins MeSH
BACKGROUND: Pegylated granulopoesis growth factors (pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factors - PGCSF), pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim, have established indications in the prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy (CHT). Almost two decades after their introduction into practice, there is an opportunity to analyze their use development. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective and single centre analysis; patients with at least one and the first in their history application of PGCSF in 2005-2020 (N = 1,794); comparison of characteristics of the Historical group (2005-2010, N = 214) with the numerically comparable Recent group (2019, N = 222). RESULTS: In the period 2005-2020, there were 1 794 patients with at least one first application of PGCSF. Historical group vs. Recent: age 50 (18-77) vs. 58 (23-84) years; women 79 vs. 66%; breast and gastrointestinal cancer 67 and 3% vs. 29 and 25% respectively; primary FN prophylaxis 45 vs. 62%; CHT curative/neo-adjuvant 75 vs. 61%; CHT Q3W 94 vs. 53%; CHT Q2W 2 vs. 36%; CHT TAC/FEC/AC 57 vs. 25%; FOLFOX/FOLFIRI ± anti-VEGF/-EGFR 0.5 vs. 16% (all P < 0.05); FN incidence 4 vs. 0%; leukopenia as a separate reason leading to postponement of CHT despite prophylactic administration of PGCSF: 2.8 vs. 4.9%; musculoskeletal pain and arthralgia 9 vs. 5%; intolerance/allergy: 2 vs. 1 (all statistically n.s.). CONCLUSION: In 2019, compared to 2005-2010, we show an increase in the use of PGCSF with a shift to palliative CHT protocols and generally less risky for the development of FN. The efficacy and safety of PGCSF were consistent with the conclusions of published studies. More detailed analyses of indications for Q2W protocols, generally low-risk or infrequent non-standard situations can bring other important insights and are topics for ideally multicenter cooperation.
References provided by Crossref.org