PURPOSE: Despite widespread use of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel (FEC-D) chemotherapy in breast cancer, the optimal strategy for primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis remains unknown. A systematic review was therefore performed. METHODS: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for trials that reported the effectiveness of primary FN prophylaxis with FEC-D chemotherapy. Outcome measures were incidence of FN; treatment-related hospitalizations; chemotherapy dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations; and adverse events from prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of 2,205 identified citations, eight studies (n = 1,250) met our eligibility criteria. Three additional studies (n = 293) were identified from a prior systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 576), one phase IV single-arm trial (n = 69), one prospective observational study (n = 37), and six retrospective studies (n = 861) were identified. Agents investigated were pegfilgrastim (n = 108), filgrastim (n = 1,119), and ciprofloxacin (n = 89). The heterogeneity of studies meant that a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates for patients who received FEC-D with and without primary prophylaxis were 10.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9% to 22.6%) and 23.9% (IQR, 9.2% to 27.3%), respectively. In the absence of primary prophylaxis, FN was more common during docetaxel than during FEC. Data from six studies showed a median rate of dose reductions and delays of 6.1% (IQR, 3.1% to 14.3%) and 19.3% (IQR, 10.5% to 32.8%), respectively, that occurred as a consequence of FN. Toxicity from prophylaxis itself was rarely reported. CONCLUSION: Primary FN prophylaxis is effective in patients who receive FEC-D chemotherapy. The paucity of prospective data makes optimal recommendations about the choice and timing of prophylaxis challenging.
PURPOSE: Despite widespread use of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel (FEC-D) chemotherapy in breast cancer, the optimal strategy for primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis remains unknown. A systematic review was therefore performed. METHODS: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for trials that reported the effectiveness of primary FN prophylaxis with FEC-D chemotherapy. Outcome measures were incidence of FN; treatment-related hospitalizations; chemotherapy dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations; and adverse events from prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of 2,205 identified citations, eight studies (n = 1,250) met our eligibility criteria. Three additional studies (n = 293) were identified from a prior systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 576), one phase IV single-arm trial (n = 69), one prospective observational study (n = 37), and six retrospective studies (n = 861) were identified. Agents investigated were pegfilgrastim (n = 108), filgrastim (n = 1,119), and ciprofloxacin (n = 89). The heterogeneity of studies meant that a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates for patients who received FEC-D with and without primary prophylaxis were 10.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9% to 22.6%) and 23.9% (IQR, 9.2% to 27.3%), respectively. In the absence of primary prophylaxis, FN was more common during docetaxel than during FEC. Data from six studies showed a median rate of dose reductions and delays of 6.1% (IQR, 3.1% to 14.3%) and 19.3% (IQR, 10.5% to 32.8%), respectively, that occurred as a consequence of FN. Toxicity from prophylaxis itself was rarely reported. CONCLUSION: Primary FN prophylaxis is effective in patients who receive FEC-D chemotherapy. The paucity of prospective data makes optimal recommendations about the choice and timing of prophylaxis challenging.
Authors: D Rayson; S Lutes; M Sellon; B Colwell; M Dorreen; A Drucker; A Jeyakumar; S Snow; T Younis Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Henri Roché; Pierre Fumoleau; Marc Spielmann; Jean-Luc Canon; Thierry Delozier; Daniel Serin; Michel Symann; Pierre Kerbrat; Patrick Soulié; Françoise Eichler; Patrice Viens; Alain Monnier; Anita Vindevoghel; Mario Campone; Marie-Josèphe Goudier; Jacques Bonneterre; Jean-Marc Ferrero; Anne-Laure Martin; Jean Genève; Bernard Asselain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Wildiers; L Dirix; P Neven; A Prové; P Clement; P Squifflet; F Amant; T Skacel; R Paridaens Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-03-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: J Bergh; T Wiklund; B Erikstein; T Fornander; N O Bengtsson; P Malmström; P Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; G Anker; H Bennmarker; N Wilking Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Nicole Skoetz; Julia Bohlius; Andreas Engert; Ina Monsef; Oliver Blank; Jörg-Janne Vehreschild Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-21
Authors: Eva Culakova; Ramya Thota; Marek S Poniewierski; Nicole M Kuderer; Adane F Wogu; David C Dale; Jeffrey Crawford; Gary H Lyman Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2014-02-17 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Annika Y Classen; Larissa Henze; Marie von Lilienfeld-Toal; Georg Maschmeyer; Michael Sandherr; Luisa Durán Graeff; Nael Alakel; Maximilian Christopeit; Stefan W Krause; Karin Mayer; Silke Neumann; Oliver A Cornely; Olaf Penack; Florian Weißinger; Hans-Heinrich Wolf; Jörg Janne Vehreschild Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.673