A pilot study on intermittent every other days of 5-dose Filgrastim compared with single Pegfilgrastim in breast Cancer patients receiving adjuvant Docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy.

Aim To compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent every other days 5-dose filgrastim with single pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy. Methods In this pilot study, Korean patients who had undergone complete resection for breast cancer and scheduled for adjuvant TAC chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either intermittent 5 doses of filgrastim (5 mcg/kg/day) or once-a-cycle pegfilgrastim (6 mg) as primary prophylaxis during the first three cycles of the TAC chemotherapy. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was analyzed as well. Results A total of 22 patients were randomly and equally divided into filgrastim or pegfilgrastim arms. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurred in 1 patient in the pegfilgrastim arm (1 of 33 cycles) and none in the filgrastim arm. G3 neutropenia occurred in 1 patient (1 of 33 cycles) in the filgrastim arm and 2 patients (4 of 33 cycles) in the pegfilgrastim arm (P = 0.476). G4 neutropenia occurred in 11 patients (28 of 33 cycles) in the filgrastim arm and 9 patients (18 of 33 cycles) in the pegfilgrastim arm (P = 0.476). Except for on day 9 in cycle 3, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of ANC. Conclusion We observed no significant differences between the two methods of prophylaxis in terms of FN and G3/4 neutropenia incidence in patients receiving adjuvant TAC chemotherapy. Intermittent every other days 5-dose filgrastim may be available alternative to pegfilgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis Is Effective in the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia and Reduces Mortality in Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with R-CHOP: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) can cause suboptimal treatment and treatment-related mortality (TRM) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and we compared them with the PROCESS cohort (n=485). RESULTS: Since January 2015, 986 patients with DLBCL were enrolled. Pegfilgrastim was administered at least once in 930 patients (94.3%), covering 90.3% of all cycles. FN developed in 137 patients (13.9%) in this cohort (23.7% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001), and 4.2% of all cycles (10.2% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001). Dose delay was less common (≥3 days: 18.1% vs. 23.7%, p=0.015; ≥5 days: 12.0% vs. 18.3%, p=0.023) in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The incidence of TRM (3.2% vs. 5.6%, p=0.047) and infection-related death (1.8% vs. 4.5%, p=0.004) was lower in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The 4-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of the two cohorts were not different (OS: 73.0% vs. 71.9%, p=0.545; PFS: 69.5% vs. 68.8%, p=0.616). However, in patients aged ≥75 years, the 4-year OS and PFS rates were higher in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort (OS: 49.6% vs. 33.7%, p=0.032; PFS: 44.2% vs. 30.3% p=0.047). CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of FN and infection-related death in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and it also improves OS in patients aged ≥75 years.