Bohlius J, Reiser M, Schwarzer G, Engert A
Department I of Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 15, Cologne, Germany, 50924.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(3):CD003189. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003189.pub3.
Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken.
To determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects.
We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2003). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data.
Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care.
Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.
We included 12 eligible randomised controlled trials with 1823 patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.66 to 2.82); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11), FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35) and OS (hazard ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16). One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.
粒细胞生成刺激因子,如粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)和粒细胞巨噬细胞集落刺激因子(GM-CSF),正被用于预防恶性淋巴瘤患者在治疗过程中出现的发热性中性粒细胞减少和感染。G-CSF和GM-CSF是否能提高该患者群体的剂量强度、肿瘤反应及总生存期,这一问题尚未得到解答。由于单项研究结果尚无定论,因此进行了一项系统评价。
确定G-CSF和GM-CSF对恶性淋巴瘤患者预防中性粒细胞减少、发热性中性粒细胞减少和感染;改善生活质量、对治疗方案的依从性、肿瘤反应、无治疗失败生存期(FFTF)和总生存期(OS);以及不良反应方面的有效性。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CancerLit及其他相关文献数据库;正在进行的试验的互联网数据库;以及美国临床肿瘤学会和美国血液学会的会议论文集(1980 - 2003年)。我们纳入了全文和摘要出版物以及未发表的数据。
纳入比较G-CSF或GM-CSF预防与安慰剂/无预防措施对接受化疗的成年恶性淋巴瘤患者疗效的随机对照试验进行综述。两个研究组均须接受相同的化疗和支持治疗。
试验的合格性和质量评估、数据提取和分析均重复进行。与作者联系以获取缺失数据。
我们纳入了12项合格的随机对照试验,共1823例患者。与无预防措施相比,G-CSF和GM-CSF均显著降低了严重中性粒细胞减少(相对危险度(RR)0.67;95%置信区间(CI)0.60至0.73)、发热性中性粒细胞减少(RR 0.74;95%CI 0.62至0.89)和感染(RR 0.74;?95%CI 0.64至0.85)的相对危险度。没有证据表明G-CSF或GM-CSF能减少需要静脉使用抗生素的患者数量(RR 0.82;95%CI 0.57至1.18);降低感染相关死亡率(RR 1.37;95%CI 0.66至2.82);或改善完全肿瘤反应(RR 1.02;95%CI 0.94至1.11)、FFTF(风险比1.11;95%CI 0.91至1.35)和OS(风险比1.00;95%CI 0.86至1.16)。一项研究评估了生活质量参数,发现各治疗组之间无差异。
G-CSF和GM-CSF在接受传统化疗 的恶性淋巴瘤患者中用作预防措施时,可降低中性粒细胞减少、发热性中性粒细胞减少和感染的风险。然而,根据目前可得的随机试验,没有证据表明G-CSF或GM-CSF在完全肿瘤反应、FFTF或OS方面具有显著优势。