2022Future OncologyOpen access

Real-world febrile neutropenia rates with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim after myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Kyle Kitchen, Michael Mosier

Open full text 7 citations

Abstract

Aim: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim. Materials & methods: This single-institution, real-world, retrospective electronic health record–based study included patients who received chemotherapy and prophylactic same-day or next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Results: In cycle 1, 117 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim and 180 patients received next-day pegfilgrastim. FN episodes in cycle 1 occurred in 6.0 versus 6.7% of patients with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim, respectively (p = 0.814). Across all cycles, 8.5 and 9.4% of patients experienced ≥1 FN episode after same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim, respectively (p = 0.793). In the breast cancer patient subgroup, FN occurred 3.2% of same-day pegfilgrastim cycles versus 1.8% of next-day pegfilgrastim cycles (p = 0.938). Conclusion: No significant differences were detected between same-day and next-day pegfilgrastim administration.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Aim: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim. Materials & methods: This single-institution, real-world, retrospective electronic health record–based study included patients who received chemotherapy and prophylactic same-day or next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Results: In cycle 1, 117 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim and 180 patients received next-day pegfilgrastim. FN episodes in cycle 1 occurred in 6.0 versus 6.7% of patients with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim, respectively (p = 0.814). Across all cycles, 8.5 and 9.4% of patients experienced ≥1 FN episode after same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim, respectively (p = 0.793). In the breast cancer patient subgroup, FN occurred 3.2% of same-day pegfilgrastim cycles versus 1.8% of next-day pegfilgrastim cycles (p = 0.938). Conclusion: No significant differences were detected between same-day and next-day pegfilgrastim administration.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 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: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim. Materials & methods: This single-institution, real-world, retrospective electronic health record–based study included patients who received chemotherapy and prophylactic same-day or next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Results: In cycle 1, 117 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim and 180 patients received next-day pegfilgrastim. FN episodes in cycle 1 occurred in 6.0 versus 6.7% of patients with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim, respectively (p = 0.814). Across all cycles, 8.5 and 9.4% of patients experienced ≥1 FN episode after same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim, respectively (p = 0.793). In the breast cancer patient subgroup, FN occurred 3.2% of same-day pegfilgrastim cycles versus 1.8% of next-day pegfilgrastim cycles (p = 0.938). Conclusion: No significant differences were detected between same-day and next-day pegfilgrastim administration.

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

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Real-world febrile neutropenia rates with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim after myelosuppressive chemotherapy — Research Paper | ScholarLens