Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI), Four Davis Court, Brookline, MA, 02445, USA,
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Dec;22(12):3275-85. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2362-5. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
Considerable evidence exists concerning the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with well-established, older chemotherapy regimens. Little is known, however, about the risks associated with many regimens that were introduced in the past decade and have become the predominant choice for certain cohorts of patients or are increasingly being used in clinical practice.
A retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data (2006-2011) were employed. Study subjects included adult patients receiving the following: docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC), 5-FU + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (FEC), FEC followed by docetaxel (FEC → D), or docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab (TCH) for non-metastatic breast cancer; TCH for metastatic breast cancer; 5-FU + leucovorin + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for metastatic pancreatic cancer; and bendamustine (with rituximab [BR], without rituximab [B-Mono]) for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). For each patient, the first qualifying chemotherapy course and each cycle therein were identified, as were the use of supportive care-colony-stimulating factors (CSF) and antimicrobials (AMB)-and unique FN episodes.
The crude risk (incidence proportion) of FN during the chemotherapy course ranged from 8.8 (95 % CI 8.3-9.3) to 10.6 % (9.3-12.1) among the breast cancer regimens, was slightly higher for the NHL regimens (BR, 10.5 % [8.9-12.4]; B-Mono, 14.7 % [11.2-18.9]), and was markedly higher for FOLFIRINOX (24.7 % [17.9-33.1]). Most patients developing FN required inpatient care (range, 73-90 %). Use of CSF primary prophylaxis ranged from 17 (B-Mono) to 75 % (FEC → D); use of AMB primary prophylaxis ranged from 6 (FOLFIRINOX) to 13 % (B-Mono).
The risk of FN among patients receiving selected emerging chemotherapy regimens is considerable, and most cases require inpatient care. Use of CSF and AMB prophylaxis, however, varies substantially across regimens.
大量证据表明,与既定的、较老的化疗方案相比,发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)的风险更高。然而,对于过去十年中引入的许多方案以及成为某些患者群体的首选方案或在临床实践中越来越多地使用的方案,人们对其相关风险知之甚少。
采用回顾性队列设计和美国医疗保健索赔数据(2006-2011 年)。研究对象包括接受以下治疗的成年患者:多西他赛+环磷酰胺(TC)、5-氟尿嘧啶+表柔比星+环磷酰胺(FEC)、FEC 后继以多西他赛(FEC→D)、或多西他赛+卡铂+曲妥珠单抗(TCH)用于非转移性乳腺癌;转移性乳腺癌患者使用 TCH;转移性胰腺癌患者使用 5-氟尿嘧啶+亚叶酸+伊立替康+奥沙利铂(FOLFIRINOX);非霍奇金淋巴瘤(NHL)患者使用苯达莫司汀(联合利妥昔单抗[BR],不联合利妥昔单抗[B-Mono])。对于每位患者,确定了第一个合格的化疗疗程和其中的每一个周期,以及支持性护理-集落刺激因子(CSF)和抗生素(AMB)的使用情况,以及独特的 FN 发作。
乳腺癌方案中,化疗疗程期间 FN 的粗风险(发生率)为 8.8%(95%CI 8.3-9.3)至 10.6%(9.3-12.1),NHL 方案略高(BR,10.5%[8.9-12.4];B-Mono,14.7%[11.2-18.9]),FOLFIRINOX 则显著升高(24.7%[17.9-33.1])。大多数发生 FN 的患者需要住院治疗(范围 73-90%)。CSF 一级预防的使用率从 17%(B-Mono)到 75%(FEC→D)不等;AMB 一级预防的使用率从 6%(FOLFIRINOX)到 13%(B-Mono)不等。
接受选定新兴化疗方案的患者发生 FN 的风险相当大,大多数病例需要住院治疗。然而,CSF 和 AMB 预防的使用在方案之间存在很大差异。