Randomized open label phase III trial of CEOP/IMVP-Dexa alternating chemotherapy and filgrastim versus CEOP/IMVP-Dexa alternating chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). A multicenter trial by the Austrian Working Group for Medical Tumor Therapy

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

Impact of front line relative dose intensity for methotrexate and comorbidities in immunocompetent elderly patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma

Primary central nervous system lymphomas (PCNSL) are non-Hodgkin lymphomas strictly localized to the CNS, occurring mainly in elderly patients with comorbidities. Current treatment in fit patients relies on high-dose methotrexate and high-dose cytarabine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of this treatment in elderly patients and to assess potential prognostic factors associated with survival. We conducted a retrospective study in two centers between January 2008 and September 2015 including 35 elderly immunocompetent patients who received first-line treatment with high-dose methotrexate. With a median follow-up of 19.8 months (range: 1.7-73.4 months), median overall survival (OS) was 39.5 months (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 18.3-60.7) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 25.8 months (95% CI: 5.2-46.4). In univariate analysis, administration of high-dose cytarabine and achieving a relative dose intensity for methotrexate > 75% were associated with increased OS (p = 0.006 and p = 0.003, respectively) and PFS (p = 0.003 and p = 0.04, respectively) whereas comorbidities, defined by a CIRS-G score ≥ 8, were associated with decreased OS and PFS (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively). A high MSKCC score was associated with decreased OS (p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, administration of high-dose cytarabine was associated with increased OS and PFS (p = 0.02 and p = 0.007, respectively). Comorbidities and relative dose intensity for methotrexate are important for the prognosis of elderly patients with PCNSL. These results must be confirmed in prospective trials.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines.

RESULTS

We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

Implications of the European Organisation for Research And Treatment Of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for lymphoma care

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially life-threatening complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines recommend use of primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis if the overall FN risk to a patient is >or=20%, or if a reduction in chemotherapy dose intensity correlates with a poorer outcome. Many of the regimens used for treatment of lymphoma, including R-CHOP (rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone), are associated with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Individual patient factors that may increase the risk of FN such as advanced age or advanced disease should be taken into account when assessing the need for G-CSF support. Predictive models are being developed to facilitate individual risk assessment. Additional anti-infective prophylaxis may be indicated in some settings. There is now much evidence for the benefits of G-CSF in reducing the incidence of FN and facilitating delivery of chemotherapy, including dose-escalated and dose-dense (interval-reduced) regimens. If given according to guidelines, G-CSF has the potential to reduce FN and related morbidity. Furthermore, by facilitating delivery of planned chemotherapy, use of G-CSF may potentially influence survival in the curative setting. Implementation of the EORTC guidelines will lead to a greater proportion of patients receiving G-CSFs, but the costs involved should be at least partly offset by a reduction in FN and its associated costs, including those of hospitalization.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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 - 2007). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 eligible randomised controlled trials with 2607 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09) or FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). Prophylaxis 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 0.93; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.71); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10).One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups.

AUTHORS' 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.

Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have demonstrated a significant reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) after systemic chemotherapy. Several RCTs have been published recently that investigate the impact of G-CSF on mortality and relative dose-intensity (RDI).

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all reported RCTs comparing primary prophylactic G-CSF with placebo or untreated controls in adult solid tumor and malignant lymphoma patients was undertaken without language restrictions, using electronic databases, conference proceedings, and hand-searching techniques. Two reviewers extracted data independently. Summary estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs were estimated based on the method of Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian and Laird.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs were identified including 3,493 patients. For infection-related mortality, RR reduction with G-CSF compared with controls was 45% (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.90; P = .018); for early mortality (all-cause mortality during chemotherapy period), it was 40% (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.83; P = .002); and for FN, it was 46% (RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67; P < .001). Average RDI was significantly higher in patients who received G-CSF compared with control patients (P < .001). Bone or musculoskeletal pain was reported in 10.4% of controls and 19.6% of G-CSF patients (RR = 4.03; 95% CI, 2.15 to 7.52; P < .001). Significant reductions in FN with G-CSF were observed in studies allowing secondary G-CSF prophylaxis in controls and in the three trials with concurrent prophylactic antibiotics in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic G-CSF reduces the risk of FN and early deaths, including infection-related mortality, while increasing RDI and musculoskeletal pain. There are insufficient data to assess the impact of G-CSF on disease-free and overall survival.

Epidemiology of treatment-associated mucosal injury after treatment with newer regimens for lymphoma, breast, lung, or colorectal cancer

GOALS OF WORK

Oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis are frequent complications of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer, contributing to not only the morbidity of treatment but its cost as well. The risk associated with specific chemotherapeutic agents, alone and in combination, has been characterized previously. In the current study, we sought to estimate the risk associated with newer regimens for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and common solid tumors.

METHODS

We reviewed published studies reporting phase II and III clinical trials of dose-dense regimens for breast cancer and NHL, TAC (docetaxel, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer, and infusional 5-fluorouracil-based regimens for colorectal cancer. Platinum-, gemcitabine-, and taxane-based regimens for lung cancer, either alone or in combination with radiotherapy, were also considered. Using modified meta-analysis methods, we calculated quality-adjusted estimates of the risk for oral and GI mucositis by tumor type and regimen. Case reports are used to emphasize the relevance of the findings for patient care.

MAIN RESULTS

Our findings demonstrate that mucosal toxicity remains an important complication of cancer treatment. Moreover, innovations in drug combinations, scheduling, or mode of administration significantly modulate the risk for both oral and GI mucositis.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing review of the clinical trial experience will remain important as newer, targeted agents enter standard clinical practice.

Long-term results of dose density therapy in patients with aggressive lymphoma

To evaluate the long-term outcome of dose density chemotherapy in the treatment of aggressive lymphoma, we analyzed 142 patients with untreated aggressive lymphoma. Chemotherapy was an eight-drug regimen given in weekly intervals in two prospective trials. The median observation period was 8 years; the longest follow-up was 13 years. Overall survival at 8 years was 0.583. The 8-year survival of patients < or =60 years was significantly better than that of older patients, namely 0.713 vs 0.304 (p=0.000000697). This excellent survival of patients aged < or =60 years was identical for high-risk and high-intermediate-risk patients compared with low-risk and low-intermediate-risk patients in the age-adjusted international prognostic index (IPI). The excellent long-term results of the CEOP/IMVP-Dexa regimen (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, vincristine, and prednisone/ifosfamide with systemic mesna, methotrexate, etoposide, and dexamethasone) for patients aged < or =60 years suggest that this regimen might be superior to the standard CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) and needs to be tested in comparison to high-dose regimens and novel approaches including antibody treatment.

Are prophylactic haematopoietic growth factors of value in the management of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma?

Combination chemotherapy used to treat patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is associated with neutropenia and subsequent infection, hospital admission and treatment delays. Haematopoietic growth factors (HGF) can prevent neutropenia and improve quality of life. We undertook a meta-analysis of six randomised and one nonrandomised trials to quantify the effect in previously untreated patients, and a simple cost-effectiveness analysis. The trials compared HGF plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone. In total, there were 779 patients aged between 15 and 82 years. Haematopoietic growth factors was associated with a statistically significant 44% reduction in the incidence of severe neutropenia (neutrophil count <0.5 × 10⁹ l⁻¹), a 60% reduction in the number of hospital admissions due to infection, an 80% reduction in the number of patients who had a treatment delay due to neutropenia and a 50% reduction in hospital stay. These data together with UK G-CSF drug costs were combined to develop a simple cost-effectiveness model, based on direct costs. Given the current cost of G-CSF, it would only be cost-effective among patients in which high rates of hospital stay due to neutropenia or infection are expected. Alternatively, if the cost could be reduced then all patients may be able to obtain the benefits. However, the evidence that prophylactic HGFs are clinically worthwhile is clear.

Long-term follow-up of patients with intermediate or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with a combination of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, vincristine, and prednisone

BACKGROUND

Doxorubicin cardiotoxicity is one of the most serious side effects of the cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy, regimen, especially among elderly patients. In the CEOP regimen, epirubicin was substituted for doxorubicin to reduce cardiotoxicity.

METHODS

Between March 1984 and September 1998, 186 previously untreated patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma according to the Working Formulation were treated with CEOP (cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m(2), epirubicin, 75 mg/m(2), vincristine, 1.4 mg/m(2); and prednisone, 60 mg per day orally on Days 1-5). Of 186 patients, 85 (45.7%) had Stage IV disease, and 60 (32.3%) had an International Prognostic Index score > 2. Comorbidity was present in 36 patients (19.3%).

RESULTS

Complete remission (CR) was achieved in 119 patients (64.3%), and partial remission was achieved in 30 patients (16.2%). Among the patients who achieved a CR, 95 (79.8%) were still disease free at a median follow-up time of 86.9 months (range, 14-200 months). The remaining 24 patients experienced disease recurrence, at a median follow-up time of 19 months (range, 3-101 months). The relative dose intensities were 0.69, 0.89, and 0.80 for vincristine, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, respectively. Two patients died of toxicity due to infection. Two patients, 59 and 73 years old, respectively, experienced arrhythmia. Another patient, age 64 years, who had a myocardial infarction 10 years earlier, had angina. One patient with hypertension experienced cardiac failure. No patients died of cardiac toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up confirmed that CEOP is an effective and well-tolerated chemotherapy regimen for intermediate- and high-grade lymphoma. The results were promising, especially among elderly patients.

Impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma: a systematic review

The granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are used to prevent neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in patients with malignant lymphoma. The question as to whether G-CSF/GM-CSF improves dose-intensity, tumour response and overall survival (OS) has not yet been answered. As the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was performed to determine the effectiveness of G-CSF/GM-CSF. Randomized controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF/GM-CSF versus no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy were included. Medical databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase) and conference proceedings were searched. All authors were contacted to obtain missing data. We included 11 studies making a total of 1434 patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, G-CSF/GM-CSF significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for neutropenia [RR 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.75]] febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.62-0.89]) and infection (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.64-0.85]). G-CSF/GM-CSF did not decrease infection-related mortality (RR 2.07 [95% CI 0.81-5.34]), improve complete remission (CR) (RR 1.06 [95% CI 0.96-1.16]) or OS (HR 0.98 [95% CI 0.81-1.18]). In conclusion, G-CSF/GM-CSF given during conventional chemotherapy in malignant lymphoma patients reduced the RR of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, there is no evidence that G-CSF/GM-CSF improved CR and OS in this clinical setting.

Macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) prevents infectious death induced by chemotherapy in mice, while granulocyte-CSF does not

To clarify the effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF/CSF-1) on chemotherapy-induced infection, we estimated the effect of those CSFs on a mouse model under severe myelosuppression. First, we established an animal model in which 48.9% (22/45) of C3H/Hej mice died of sepsis related to severe myelosuppression after intraperitoneal administration of a single dose (9 mg/kg) of mitomycin C (MMC). G-CSF or M-CSF was administered to this model on various administration schedules after chemotherapy, and the effect of those CSFs on survival rates, peripheral blood granulocyte counts, expression of adhesion molecules (CD11a, CD11b, CD18) on granulocytes and granulocyte function (phagocytosis and superoxide anion production) were examined. In all G-CSF administration groups, peripheral blood granulocyte counts were increased, but improvements in expression of adhesion molecules such as CD11a and CD18, and granulocyte function were less marked and survival rates were not improved. Meanwhile, when M-CSF was administered from 1 to 7 days after chemotherapy, granulocyte and platelet counts were increased, and moreover, expression of adhesion molecules and granulocyte function were markedly improved. Furthermore, the survival rate was significantly improved to 77.8% (28/36) compared with the MMC group (P < 0.05). Positive rate of blood culture examination at 7 days after chemotherapy in the M group was 0%, and was significantly lower than that in the G group (40%) and the MMC group (40%) (P < 0.05). These results demonstrated that it is important not only to increase the granulocyte counts, but also to improve granulocyte functions for preventing infection under myelosuppression after chemotherapy.

Macrophage colony-stimulating factor prevents febrile neutropenia induced by chemotherapy

There are very few studies describing the preventive effect of macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF/CSF-1) on chemotherapy-induced infection. In this study, we evaluated the changes in superoxide anion production by granulocytes before and after chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients and investigated the preventive effect of M-CSF on chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Three courses of chemotherapy [paclitaxel 180 mg/m(2) and carboplatin (area under the curve; AUC 5)] were administered to 32 ovarian cancer patients, and seven patients presented febrile neutropenia. In the 25 afebrile patients, the percentage of superoxide anion production by granulocytes was significantly decreased from 86.5 +/- 7.7 (%) to 75.1 +/- 8.8 (%) at day 7 and 71.0 +/- 6.3 (%) at day 14 without administration of CSF. However, in the patients who presented febrile neutropenia, it was more severely decreased from 86.8 +/- 6.8 (%) to 60.0 +/- 9.9 (%) at day 7 and 56.8 +/- 5.0 (%) at day 14 without administration of CSF. When M-CSF was administered to all patients in the next course with the same dose of chemotherapy, the incidence of febrile neutropenia was significantly decreased (P = 0.0195), and the duration of fever (>or= 38.0 degrees C) and high serum C-reactive protein (CRP) (>or= 2.0 mg/dl) were also significantly shortened (P = 0.0023, P = 0.0051). Moreover, in these M-CSF-treated patients, the percentage of superoxide anion production by granulocytes was maintained at the level before chemotherapy. These findings indicate that severe impairment of granulocyte function leads to febrile neutropenia, and that M-CSF reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia by maintaining or improving granulocyte function.