2010Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical OncologyRequires access

Comparison of daily filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia in Asian lymphoma patients

Alexandre Chan, Xue Zhen LENG, Joen Chiang, Miriam Tao, Richard Hong Hui Quek, Kevin Kuang Wei Tay, Soon Thye Lim

Open publisher page 19 citations

Abstract

AIM: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a highly prevalent complication of chemotherapy, particularly in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in Asian lymphoma patients by evaluating the incidence of FN and associated complications. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study in Asian lymphoma patients who received chemotherapy with primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors support between January 2008 and August 2009. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach, which aimed to reflect actual prescribing practices. RESULTS: A total of 204 Asian lymphoma patients were included in this study, with 81 patients in the filgrastim arm and 123 patients in the pegfilgrastim arm. Overall, the incidence of breakthrough FN was similar between the two groups of patients (13.6%: filgrastim arm vs 16.3%: pegfilgrastim arm; P=0.69). Neutropenic complications such as chemotherapy treatment delay and chemotherapy dose reduction were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: In Asian patients, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis did not show a therapeutic advantage for preventing neutropenic outcomes compared with filgrastim prophylaxis.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a highly prevalent complication of chemotherapy, particularly in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in Asian lymphoma patients by evaluating the incidence of FN and associated complications. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study in Asian lymphoma patients who received chemotherapy with primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors support between January 2008 and August 2009. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach, which aimed to reflect actual prescribing practices. RESULTS: A total of 204 Asian lymphoma patients were included in this study, with 81 patients in the filgrastim arm and 123 patients in the pegfilgrastim arm. Overall, the incidence of breakthrough FN was similar between the two groups of patients (13.6%: filgrastim arm vs 16.3%: pegfilgrastim arm; P=0.69). Neutropenic complications such as chemotherapy treatment delay and chemotherapy dose reduction were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: In Asian patients, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis did not show a therapeutic advantage for preventing neutropenic outcomes compared with filgrastim prophylaxis.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 19 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a highly prevalent complication of chemotherapy, particularly in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in Asian lymphoma patients by evaluating the incidence of FN and associated complications. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study in Asian lymphoma patients who received chemotherapy with primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors support between January 2008 and August 2009. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach, which aimed to reflect actual prescribing practices. RESULTS: A total of 204 Asian lymphoma patients were included in this study, with 81 patients in the filgrastim arm and 123 patients in the pegfilgrastim arm. Overall, the incidence of breakthrough FN was similar between the two groups of patients (13.6%: filgrastim arm vs 16.3%: pegfilgrastim arm; P=0.69). Neutropenic complications such as chemotherapy treatment delay and chemotherapy dose reduction were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: In Asian patients, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis did not show a therapeutic advantage for preventing neutropenic outcomes compared with filgrastim prophylaxis.

Key concepts: Pegfilgrastim, Filgrastim, Medicine, Febrile neutropenia, Neutropenia, Lymphoma, Chemotherapy, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of daily filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia in Asian lymphoma patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens