Bokemeyer Carsten, Gascón Pere, Aapro Matti, Ludwig Heinz, Boccadoro Mario, Denhaerynck Kris, Gorray Michael, Krendyukov Andriy, Abraham Ivo, MacDonald Karen
Universitaetsklinikum Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology-Oncology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Support Care Cancer. 2017 Jun;25(6):1819-1828. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3572-4. Epub 2017 Jan 22.
In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations.
MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary).
Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches).
The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle.
在一项关于生物类似药非格司亭治疗化疗引起的(发热性)中性粒细胞减少症的MONITOR - GCSF研究中,56.6%的患者根据修订后的欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)指南接受了预防治疗,但17.4%的患者预防治疗未达指南标准,26.0%的患者预防治疗超过了指南建议。
MONITOR - GCSF是一项前瞻性观察性研究,纳入了来自12个欧洲国家140个癌症中心的1447例可评估患者,这些患者接受了长达6个周期的骨髓抑制性化疗,并接受生物类似药非格司亭预防治疗。根据患者的化疗风险、个体风险因素以及非格司亭预防治疗类型(一级与二级),相对于指南建议,将患者分类为非格司亭预防治疗不足、正确或过度。
在患者风险因素(年龄、体能状态、发热性中性粒细胞减少症病史、合并症)以及预防模式(预防治疗类型、非格司亭开始使用日、非格司亭使用持续时间)方面,发现预防治疗不足组(17.4%)、正确组(56.6%)或过度组(26.0%)之间存在差异。与预防治疗不足和正确的患者相比,预防治疗过度的患者化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少症(所有级别)、发热性中性粒细胞减少症以及与化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少症相关的住院率一直较低。除了与发热性中性粒细胞减少症/化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少症相关的化疗干扰外,预防治疗不足和正确患者之间未观察到差异。各组之间未发现非格司亭安全性差异(除头痛外)。
MONITOR - GCSF研究提供的真实世界证据表明,如果患者的预防治疗水平高于指南建议,提供非格司亭支持可能会产生更好的化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少症、发热性中性粒细胞减少症以及与化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少症/发热性中性粒细胞减少症相关的住院结局。预防治疗不足的患者化疗方案受到干扰的风险更高。我们的研究结果支持指南中关于在每个化疗周期开始时评估化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少症/发热性中性粒细胞减少症风险的建议。