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
. 2012 Oct;20(10):2523-30.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1375-6. Epub 2012 Jan 15.

Primary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant TC or FEC-D chemotherapy outside of clinical trial settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Primary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant TC or FEC-D chemotherapy outside of clinical trial settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tallal Younis et al. Support Care Cancer. 2012 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Variable febrile neutropenia (FN) rates reported with adjuvant TC (taxotere®, cyclophosphamide) and FEC-D (5-flurouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel) outside of clinical trials have precluded definitive recommendations for primary G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) prophylaxis in most jurisdictions. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess: (a) FN rates associated with TC and FEC-D without primary G-CSF prophylaxis outside of clinical trial settings, and (b) the potential impact of G-CSF prophylaxis on FN prevention.

Methods: A MEDLINE search was conducted and major conference abstracts were reviewed up to June 15th 2011 to identify all relevant English-language studies. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analysis models were performed.

Results: Nine hundred two patients treated with TC and 1342 with FEC-D from 13 to 9 studies, respectively, were included. The pooled random-effects meta-analysis estimates of FN rates for TC and FEC-D without G-CSF were 29% (95% CI 24-35%) and 31% (95% CI 27-35%), with a 76% (RR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41) and 63% (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.11-1.24) relative risk reduction with G-CSF, respectively.

Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, TC and FEC-D without G-CSF are associated with FN rates exceeding the 20% threshold for which primary G-CSF prophylaxis is commonly recommended, and are considerably higher than those reported in pivotal clinical trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 1;24(34):5381-7 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Sep 10;27(26):e101-2 - PubMed
    1. Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jan;47(1):8-32 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 20;24(36):5664-71 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Supplementary concepts

LinkOut - more resources