OBJECTIVE: Pegfilgrastim is indicated to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with gynecologic malignancies who are receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of day 1 pegfilgrastim administration to day 2 administration in patients with gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients receiving both chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim from June 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007 for a gynecologic malignancy. Abstracted data included patient demographics, pathology, blood counts, toxicity, and chemotherapy. After administration of chemotherapy, all patients either received 6 mg of pegfilgrastim subcutaneously on day 1 or day 2. RESULTS: 1226 administrations of pegfilgrastim in 230 patients were identified. 490 administrations of pegfilgrastim were given on day 1 compared to 736 on day 2. 70% of patients had ovarian cancer with a median age of 64 years (range 15-88). 79% of patients had stage III, IV, or recurrent disease and 67% were undergoing primary chemotherapy. The most common chemotherapy was docetaxel/carboplatin (53%) followed by paclitaxel/carboplatin (19%). The mean absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir was 4810/mm(3) in the day 1 cohort compared to 4212/mm(3) in the day 2 cohort (p=.004). The incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia was similar in both groups (4.9% in day 1 vs. 5.7% in day 2; p=.63). Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia was uncommon in both cohorts (0 episodes vs. 3 episodes; p=.41). Treatment delays were similar in both cohorts (5.9% vs. 7.5%; p=.35). Dose modifications were also similar in both cohorts (2.8% vs. 5.3%; p=.06). CONCLUSION: Day 1 administration of pegfilgrastim is as effective as day 2 administration in the prevention of neutropenia in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Treatment delays and dose modifications were not increased after day 1 administration of pegfilgrastim. Administering pegfilgrastim on day 1 appears to be safe, effective, and convenient in selected patients receiving myelopsuppressive chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies.
OBJECTIVE: Pegfilgrastim is indicated to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with gynecologic malignancies who are receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of day 1 pegfilgrastim administration to day 2 administration in patients with gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients receiving both chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim from June 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007 for a gynecologic malignancy. Abstracted data included patient demographics, pathology, blood counts, toxicity, and chemotherapy. After administration of chemotherapy, all patients either received 6 mg of pegfilgrastim subcutaneously on day 1 or day 2. RESULTS: 1226 administrations of pegfilgrastim in 230 patients were identified. 490 administrations of pegfilgrastim were given on day 1 compared to 736 on day 2. 70% of patients had ovarian cancer with a median age of 64 years (range 15-88). 79% of patients had stage III, IV, or recurrent disease and 67% were undergoing primary chemotherapy. The most common chemotherapy was docetaxel/carboplatin (53%) followed by paclitaxel/carboplatin (19%). The mean absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir was 4810/mm(3) in the day 1 cohort compared to 4212/mm(3) in the day 2 cohort (p=.004). The incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia was similar in both groups (4.9% in day 1 vs. 5.7% in day 2; p=.63). Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia was uncommon in both cohorts (0 episodes vs. 3 episodes; p=.41). Treatment delays were similar in both cohorts (5.9% vs. 7.5%; p=.35). Dose modifications were also similar in both cohorts (2.8% vs. 5.3%; p=.06). CONCLUSION: Day 1 administration of pegfilgrastim is as effective as day 2 administration in the prevention of neutropenia in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Treatment delays and dose modifications were not increased after day 1 administration of pegfilgrastim. Administering pegfilgrastim on day 1 appears to be safe, effective, and convenient in selected patients receiving myelopsuppressive chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies.
Authors: Sarah Marion; Spiros Tzivelekis; Christina Darden; Mark A Price; Bintu Sherif; Jacob Garcia; James A Kaye; David Chandler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Derek Weycker; Xiaoyan Li; Spiros Tzivelekis; Mark Atwood; Jacob Garcia; Yanli Li; Maureen Reiner; Gary H Lyman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Kim Allcott; Jacob Garcia; Scott Stryker; Yanli Li; Maureen T Reiner; Derek Weycker Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David A Becker; Charles A Leath; Christen L Walters-Haygood; Brentley Q Smith; Kerri S Bevis Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Matteo Lambertini; Paolo Bruzzi; Francesca Poggio; Simona Pastorino; Giovanni Gardin; Matteo Clavarezza; Claudia Bighin; Paolo Pronzato; Lucia Del Mastro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heinz Ludwig; Pere Gascón; Carsten Bokemeyer; Matti Aapro; Mario Boccadoro; Kris Denhaerynck; Andriy Krendyukov; Karen MacDonald; Ivo Abraham Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 3.603