| Literature DB >> 33461376 |
Jiasheng Wang1, Marcos de Lima1, Brenda W Cooper1, Kirsten Boughan1, Leland Metheny1, Folashade Otegbeye1, Paolo F Caimi1, Molly Gallogly1, Ehsan Malek1, Shufen Cao1, Pingfu Fu1, Brett Glotzbecker1, Nicholas K Schiltz2, Benjamin K Tomlinson1.
Abstract
The role of filgrastim during acute myeloid leukemia (AML) induction therapy remains controversial. At our institution, newly diagnosed AML patients from 2003 through 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were stratified on whether they received filgrastim within 5 days after early assessment bone marrow (BMBx) and divided into early GCSF group (eGCSF) and no-eGCSF group. A total of 121 patients were included. We found significantly shorter hospital stay (median 24 vs 26 days, p < .01), absolute neutrophil count recovery days (median 23 vs 25 days, p = .03), and intravenous antibiotics days (mean 18.5 vs 21.4 days, p = .01) in patients with eGCSF comparing with no-eGCSF. There was no significant difference regarding complete response rates; however, for those failed to achieve remission, eGCSF was associated with higher blast count. There was no significant difference regarding overall survival or progression-free survival. The use of eGCSF was associated with cost savings of $5199 per patient over no-eGCSF.Entities:
Keywords: Acute myeloid leukemia; cost-benefit analysis; filgrastim; induction therapy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33461376 DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1864350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Leuk Lymphoma ISSN: 1026-8022