Critical Reviews in Oncology / Hematology
Volume 74, Issue 3 , Pages 203-210, June 2010

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

  • Matti Aapro

      Affiliations

    • Institut Multidisciplinaire d’Oncologie (IMO), Clinique de Genolier, 1 Route du Muids, 1272 Genolier, Switzerland
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +41 22 366 91 06; fax: +41 22 366 91 31.
  • ,
  • Matthias Schwenkglenks

      Affiliations

    • European Center of Pharmaceutical Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Gary H. Lyman

      Affiliations

    • Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
  • ,
  • Antonio Lopez Pousa

      Affiliations

    • Medical Oncology, Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
  • ,
  • Susan Lawrinson

      Affiliations

    • Biostatistics, Amgen Ltd, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Tomas Skacel

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Development, Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Zug, Switzerland
    • Internal Medicine – Hematoonkology, University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
  • ,
  • Pamela Bacon

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Development, Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Zug, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Gunter von Minckwitz

      Affiliations

    • German Breast Group, GBG Forschungs GmbH, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Accepted 18 June 2009. published online 14 September 2009.

Abstract 

We investigated the incidences of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related complications in elderly (≥65 years) breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy supported by pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis (PP; n=150) or current practice (CP) neutropenia management (n=104) in a subanalysis of NeuCuP (Neulasta® vs. current practice neutropenia management). Studies involving regimens with moderately high to high (≥15%) FN risk were identified by literature review, and individual patient data were integrated for analysis. FN incidence was 6% (95% CI: 2, 10%) in the PP group and 24% (95% CI: 16, 32%) in the CP group. In cycle 1, incidences were 3 and 15%, respectively. FN-related hospitalisation incidence was 5% (PP group) and 15% (CP group), while dose reductions (≥15%) occurred in 15 and 29% of patients. Pegfilgrastim provided effective PP in elderly patients, a population who may be vulnerable to chemotherapy-related FN and for whom current practice may not provide adequate protection.

Keywords: Breast cancer, Chemotherapy, Elderly, Febrile neutropenia, G-CSF, Pegfilgrastim, Primary prophylaxis

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1040-8428(09)00124-3

doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.06.004

Critical Reviews in Oncology / Hematology
Volume 74, Issue 3 , Pages 203-210, June 2010