Spanish Society of Medical Oncology consensus for the use of haematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients

Carrato, Alfredo; Rodríguez, Luis Paz-Ares; Lescure, Álvaro Rodríguez; Tejerina, Ana Ma. Casas Fernández de; García, Eduardo Díaz Rubio; Segura, Pedro Pérez; Figueiras, Manuel Constenla; Garcia-Carbonero, Rocío; Codina, José; Hernández, Ana Lluch; Rey, José Pablo Maroto; Jiménez, M. Martín; Cámara, José Ignacio Mayordomo; Nogueira, J. A. Moreno; Domı́nguez, A.

doi:10.1007/s12094-009-0383-1

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Official guidelines from Europe and the USA now agree that primary G-CSF prophylaxis should be given when the overall risk of FN due to regimen and patient factors is ≥20% [16–20]. Prior to 2006, primary G-CSF prophylaxis was recommended for chemotherapy regimens associated with a relatively high FN risk of 40% [21].…”

Section: Who Should Receive G-csfs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Aapro

Crawford

Kamioner³

2010

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is ≥20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from ‘real-world’ clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications.

show abstract

Section: Who Should Receive G-csfs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Aapro

Crawford

Kamioner³

2010

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, in accordance with European and US guidelines, recommends G-CSF use in patients with a risk of FN of >20% (17)(18)(19). A multicenter trial involving 210 patients from five Spanish hospitals revealed that the duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the group of patients receiving G-CSF (5 days), compared with that in the control group (7 days) (14).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prophylactic treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was found to be beneficial regarding patient survival and a reduction in the risk of FN (14)(15)(16). Since it is common to develop FN during the first cycle of chemotherapy, European and US guidelines recommend the use of G-CSF in patients with an FN risk of >20% (17)(18)(19). Despite widespread research into chemotherapy usage, the risk of chemotherapy-induced FN in clinical practice is poorly documented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology and characteristics of febrile neutropenia in oncology patients from Spanish tertiary care hospitals: PINNACLE study

Castro

Gascón-Vilaplana

Tejerina

et al. 2015

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the most common adverse events associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to describe the incidence of hospitalization due to FN in Spanish tertiary care hospitals (PINNACLE study). This epidemiological, retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study involved 119 patients from oncology units of 10 Spanish tertiary care hospitals who were admitted for FN. The primary endpoint was to assess the epidemiology and characteristics of FN. The incidence of admissions due to FN in oncology patients was 2.0% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.6-3.0). In terms of fever and absolute neutrophil count (ANC), 37.0% of the patients had a temperature of ≥38.2˚C and an ANC of ≤500/m 3 . The number of patients who received prophylactic treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was significantly higher in the palliative group (32.6%) compared with that in the non-palliative group (13.5%). The hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in patients who received prophylactic G-CSF compared with those who did not (5.0 days; IQR, 4.0-9.0 vs. 7.0 days; IQR, 5.0-11.0, respectively). The hospital length of stay was also significantly shorter in patients receiving palliative treatment (5.0 days; IQR, 3.0-7.0) compared with those receiving non-palliative therapy (7.0 days; IQR, 5.0-12.0). In conclusion, the incidence of admissions due to FN in oncology patients was 2.0% and the duration of hospital stay was 7.0 days. Prophylactic G-CSF treatment was found to be associated with better outcomes and shorter hospital stays. Therefore, the use of this treatment becomes relevant for achieving better clinical outcomes and reducing hospitalization cost in the management of FN.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] G-CSF is also recommended to support dosedense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose intensity where reductions and delays have been shown to adversely affect outcomes. [6] In breast cancer, regimens containing an anthracycline and a taxane have become standard of care in the adjuvant setting due to their high efficacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Use and Medical Costs after Initial Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Spanish Society of Medical Oncology consensus for the use of haematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients

Cited by 5 publications

References 54 publications

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Epidemiology and characteristics of febrile neutropenia in oncology patients from Spanish tertiary care hospitals: PINNACLE study

Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Use and Medical Costs after Initial Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About