Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2011 Sep 23:11:404.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-404.

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

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Katy L Cooper et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart for identification of relevant studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Primary G-CSFs versus no primary G-CSF: FN incidence. Cancer types for each study are shown after the author and date. CHOP and CNOP = chemotherapy regimens for NHL (see Table 1 footnote); NHL = non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; SCLC = small-cell lung cancer; solid = solid tumours. *Indicates studies in patients aged ≥ 60 or ≥ 65 years.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim: FN incidence. Cancer types for each study are shown after the author and date. HL = Hodgkin's lymphoma; NHL = non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. *Indicates studies in patients aged ≥ 60 or ≥ 65 years. In the Holmes 2002 (phase II) study,[37] FN incidence in the filgrastim arm was reported as 2/25, which was incorrectly converted to 12%. The absolute numbers (2/25) have been used in this analysis. Therefore the resulting relative risk differs slightly from that reported in the previous systematic review by Pinto (2007),[19] which used the 12% figure.

References

    1. Kuderer N, Dale D, Crawford J, Cosler L, Lyman G. Mortality, Morbidity, and Cost Associated with Febrile Neutropenia in Adult Cancer Patients. CANCER. 2006;106:2258–2266. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21847. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown R, Hutton J, Burrell A. Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Options in Advanced Breast Cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:1091–1102. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200119110-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown RE, Hutton J. Cost-utility model comparing docetaxel and paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer patients. Anticancer Drugs. 1998;9:899–907. doi: 10.1097/00001813-199811000-00009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shayne M, Crawford J, Dale D, Culakova E, Lyman G. for the ANC Study Group. Predictors of reduced dose intensity in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;100:255–262. doi: 10.1007/s10549-006-9254-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bonadonna G, Moliterni A, Zambetti M, Daidone M, Pilotti S, Gianni L. et al.30 years' follow up of randomised studies of adjuvant CMF in operable breast cancer: cohort study. BMJ. 2005;330:217–222. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38314.622095.8F. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms