BACKGROUND: The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is utilized to reduce neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. This study represents a systematic review and evidence summary of the impact of G-CSF support on chemotherapy dose intensity and overall mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support and reporting all-cause mortality with at least 2 years of follow-up were sought. Dual-blind data abstraction of disease, treatment, patient and outcome study results with conflict resolution by third party was carried out. RESULTS: The search revealed 61 randomized comparisons of chemotherapy with or without initial G-CSF support. Death was reported in 4251 patients randomized to G-CSFs and in 5188 controls. Relative risk (RR) with G-CSF support for all-cause mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.96; P < 0.001). RR for mortality varied by intended chemotherapy dose and schedule: same dose and schedule (RR = 0.96; P = 0.060), dose dense (RR = 0.89; P < 0.001), dose escalation (RR = 0.92; P = 0.019) and drug substitution or addition (RR = 0.94; P = 0.003). Greater RR reduction was observed among studies with longer follow-up (P = 0.02), where treatment was for curative intent (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001), and where survival was the primary outcome (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality is reduced in patients receiving chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support. The greatest impact was observed in RCTs in patients receiving dose-dense schedules.
BACKGROUND: The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is utilized to reduce neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. This study represents a systematic review and evidence summary of the impact of G-CSF support on chemotherapy dose intensity and overall mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support and reporting all-cause mortality with at least 2 years of follow-up were sought. Dual-blind data abstraction of disease, treatment, patient and outcome study results with conflict resolution by third party was carried out. RESULTS: The search revealed 61 randomized comparisons of chemotherapy with or without initial G-CSF support. Death was reported in 4251 patients randomized to G-CSFs and in 5188 controls. Relative risk (RR) with G-CSF support for all-cause mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.96; P < 0.001). RR for mortality varied by intended chemotherapy dose and schedule: same dose and schedule (RR = 0.96; P = 0.060), dose dense (RR = 0.89; P < 0.001), dose escalation (RR = 0.92; P = 0.019) and drug substitution or addition (RR = 0.94; P = 0.003). Greater RR reduction was observed among studies with longer follow-up (P = 0.02), where treatment was for curative intent (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001), and where survival was the primary outcome (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality is reduced in patients receiving chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support. The greatest impact was observed in RCTs in patients receiving dose-dense schedules.
Authors: Jeffrey Crawford; Jeffrey Allen; James Armitage; Douglas W Blayney; Spero R Cataland; Mark L Heaney; Sally Htoy; Susan Hudock; Dwight D Kloth; David J Kuter; Gary H Lyman; Brandon McMahon; David P Steensma; Saroj Vadhan-Raj; Peter Westervelt; Michael Westmoreland Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Joan Maurel; Antonio López-Pousa; Ramón de Las Peñas; Joaquín Fra; Javier Martín; Josefina Cruz; Antonio Casado; Andrés Poveda; Javier Martínez-Trufero; Carmen Balañá; María Auxiliadora Gómez; Ricardo Cubedo; Oscar Gallego; Belen Rubio-Viqueira; Jordi Rubió; Raquel Andrés; Isabel Sevilla; Juan Jose de la Cruz; Xavier García Del Muro; Jose María Buesa Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Pfreundschuh; Lorenz Trümper; Marita Kloess; Rudolf Schmits; Alfred C Feller; Christian Rübe; Christian Rudolph; Marcel Reiser; Dieter K Hossfeld; Hartmut Eimermacher; Dirk Hasenclever; Norbert Schmitz; Markus Loeffler Journal: Blood Date: 2004-03-11 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: I Craig Henderson; Donald A Berry; George D Demetri; Constance T Cirrincione; Lori J Goldstein; Silvana Martino; James N Ingle; M Robert Cooper; Daniel F Hayes; Katherine H Tkaczuk; Gini Fleming; James F Holland; David B Duggan; John T Carpenter; Emil Frei; Richard L Schilsky; William C Wood; Hyman B Muss; Larry Norton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leila Family; Lanfang Xu; Hairong Xu; Kimberly Cannavale; Olivia Sattayapiwat; John H Page; Chet Bohac; Chun Chao Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Munir Gunes Kutlu; Lillian J Brady; Emily G Peck; Rebecca S Hofford; Jordan T Yorgason; Cody A Siciliano; Drew D Kiraly; Erin S Calipari Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Vicki A Morrison; Edie A Weller; Thomas M Habermann; Shuli Li; Richard I Fisher; Bruce D Cheson; Bruce A Peterson Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2016-12-14
Authors: Pere Gascón; Matti Aapro; Heinz Ludwig; Carsten Bokemeyer; Mario Boccadoro; Matthew Turner; Kris Denhaerynck; Karen MacDonald; Ivo Abraham Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 3.603