Baig Hassam, Somlo Barbara, Eisen Melissa, Stryker Scott, Bensink Mark, Morrow Phuong K
1 IQVIA, Plymouth Meeting, USA.
2 Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, USA.
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019 Oct;25(7):1576-1585. doi: 10.1177/1078155218799859. Epub 2018 Sep 10.
Inappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level.
Patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed.
Overall, 86,189 patients received ∼4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1-60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n = 400) and in 70% (64.5-73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 400).
Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.
有报道称在骨髓抑制性化疗中存在粒细胞集落刺激因子使用不当的情况。利用肿瘤服务综合电子记录电子病历数据库,根据发热性中性粒细胞减少风险水平评估癌症患者预防性使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞刺激因子/重组人粒细胞刺激因子)的情况。
纳入2013年6月至2014年5月期间接受骨髓抑制性化疗的非转移性或转移性乳腺癌、头颈部癌、结直肠癌、卵巢/妇科癌、肺癌或非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者。评估高危、中危和低危化疗中预防性粒细胞集落刺激因子的使用情况以及中危化疗方案中美国国立综合癌症网络风险因素的分布情况。
总体而言,86189例患者接受了约420万个化疗周期(高危,9%;中危,48%;低危,43%)。24%的化疗周期使用了预防性粒细胞集落刺激因子(高危,59%;中危,29%;低危,11%)。对于非转移性实体瘤,化疗周期中78%(高危)、31%(中危)和6%(低危)使用了粒细胞集落刺激因子。对于转移性实体瘤或非霍奇金淋巴瘤,化疗周期中50%(高危)、27%(中危)和11%(低危)使用了粒细胞集落刺激因子。在接受中危化疗方案并使用粒细胞集落刺激因子的患者中,56%(95%置信区间,51.1 - 60.9%)的非转移性实体瘤患者(n = 400)和70%(64.5 - 73.5%)的转移性实体瘤或非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者(n = 400)被确定存在发热性中性粒细胞减少风险因素。
预防性粒细胞集落刺激因子的使用在高危化疗方案中最高,在低危化疗方案中最低,但在高危方案中仍可能使用不足,在低危方案中使用过度,在中危方案中靶向不当,这表明需要进一步开展关于发热性中性粒细胞减少风险评估和粒细胞集落刺激因子合理使用的教育。