Efficacy and safety of early G-CSF administration in patients with head and neck cancer treated by docetaxel-cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF protocol): a retrospective study

Pegfilgrastim for the management of neutropenia during neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil in esophageal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy is a new standard for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The optimal timing of pegfilgrastim with the DCF regimen to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) remains controversial. The effectiveness of concomitant pegfilgrastim administration with continuous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion in the DCF regimen was therefore assessed.

METHODS

All patients who received neoadjuvant DCF for esophageal cancer were retrospectively assessed. Patients who had been scheduled to receive pegfilgrastim on days 3-5 (early group) or days 7-9 (regular group) of the DCF regimen were included. Uni- and multivariate analyses were used to assess risk factors for FN.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were included in the analysis. The 26 patients in the early group received pegfilgrastim as scheduled. In the 62 patients of the regular group, 51 received pegfilgrastim at a median of 7 days after starting DCF chemotherapy. However, 11 patients in the regular group could not receive pegfilgrastim. Twenty-two patients of the regular group and 2 patients of the early group developed FN after the first session of DCF. Early administration of pegfilgrastim and grade 4 neutropenia were significantly associated with onset of FN, with multivariate analysis identifying early administration of pegfilgrastim as an independent preventive factor and grade 4 neutropenia as a risk factor, after adjusting for sex and age.

CONCLUSION

Early pegfilgrastim administration is a safe approach that reduces the incidence of FN in DCF therapy. Using pegfilgrastim with continuous 5-FU infusion in the DCF regimen represents a reasonable option to prevent FN.

Hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in head and neck cancers: Recent advances and therapeutic challenges

Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are key cytokines responsible for the production, maturation, and mobilization of the granulocytic and macrophage lineages from the bone marrow, which have been gaining attention for playing pro- and/or anti-tumorigenic roles in cancer. Head and neck cancers (HNCs) represent a group of heterogeneous neoplasms with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Treatment for HNCs is still limited even with the advancements in cancer immunotherapy. Novel treatments for patients with recurrent and metastatic HNCs are urgently needed. This article provides an in-depth review of the role of hematopoietic cytokines such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), and interleukin-3 (IL-3; also known as multi-CSF) in the HNCs tumor microenvironment. We have reviewed current results from clinical trials using CSFs as adjuvant therapy to treat HNCs patients, and also clinical findings reported to date on the therapeutic application of CSFs toxicities arising from chemoradiotherapy.

Efficacy of same-day versus next-day administration of pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: A retrospective multi-site analysis

INTRODUCTION

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy can improve patient satisfaction through convenience and may increase the utilization of cost-effective biosimilars compared to next-day administration, but the effect on clinical outcomes with commonly used breast cancer regimens is unclear.

METHODS

This multi-site, retrospective cohort study included breast cancer patients age 18 years or older who received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) and pegfilgrastim between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2020. Pegfilgrastim was given on the same day as chemotherapy at one site and the day after chemotherapy at the other two sites. The primary endpoint compared the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with pegfilgrastim administration timing.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients were reviewed (146 same-day administration and 214 next-day administration). In the same-day group 36 patients (24.6%) developed FN compared to 25 patients (11.7%) in the next-day group (p = 0.002). Same-day administration also significantly increased the incidences of additional acute care visits (11.6% vs 2.8%, p = 0.0016), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (38.4% vs 13.6%, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy dose reductions (21.2% vs 6.1%, p < 0.0001), and antibiotic use (26.7% vs 12.6%, p = 0.001). Same-day administration did not significantly increase the rate of hospitalization (15% vs 11.2%, p = 0.36) and delay of next chemotherapy cycle by ≥1 day (8.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.57) due to neutropenic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as ddAC led to a significant increase in neutropenic complications. This study confirms the need to administer pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving ddAC.

Comparison of prophylactic effects for chemotherapy induced neutropenia between same-day versus next-day administration of pegteograstim (Neurapeg®) in patients treated with chemotherapy regimen composed of day 1 intensive myleosuppressive agent: A randomized phase III clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Administration of pegylated granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (peg-GCSF) 24 to 72 hours after chemotherapy is usually recommended. Next-day administration (after 24 hours) resulted in fewer duration of grade (Gr) 4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and decreased severity of CIN than same-day (within 4 hours). However, patients sometimes receive same-day Peg-GCSF for the sake of convenience. In addition, a few prior studies showed that the same-day method is comparable or superior to the next-day method in preventing CIN, especially in chemotherapy regimens that include day 1 myelosuppressive agents. Thus, we aim to verify the hypothesis that same-day administration of pegteograstim, a new formulation of peg-GCSF, is non-inferior to next-day administration in terms of Gr4 CIN duration.

METHODS

This study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, investigator-initiated phase 3 study. Patients with adjuvant/neoadjuvant or first-line palliative chemotherapy comprising intensively myelosuppressive agents on day 1 (mFOLFIRINOX, ECb, EP, FOLFIRI, and FOLFOX) are enrolled. The patients are assigned to the same-day arm or the next-day arm in a 1:1 ratio. The randomizations are stratified according to number of patient CIN risk factors (1 vs ≥2), chemotherapy setting (perioperative vs palliative), and interval (2-week vs 3-week). In the same-day arm, pegteograstim 6 mg is subcutaneously injected within 4 hours after completion of chemotherapy. In the next-day arm, pegetograstim is injected at 24 to 36 hours post-chemotherapy. A complete blood count test is performed daily from day 5 to 9 during the cycle 1. The primary endpoint is duration of Gr4 CIN (cycle 1), and secondary endpoints include incidence of Gr 3 to 4 CIN (cycle 1), severity of CIN (cycle 1), time to recovery absolute neutrophil count 1000/μL (cycle 1), incidence of febrile neutropenia, incidence of CIN-related dose delay, and dose intensity. In order to verify non-inferiority of 0.6 days, we estimated a significance level of 5%, power of 80%, and drop-out rate of 15%. This results in the need for a total of 160 patients, 80 in each group.

Effect of concomitant use of G-CSF and myelosuppressive chemotherapy on bone marrow and peripheral granulocytes in a mouse model

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) stimulates bone marrow progenitor cell proliferation and enhances neutrophil production. Exogenous G-CSF administration is indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia management. However, there is a paucity of basic research examining the effects of the concomitant use of G-CSF and chemotherapy on myeloid cells in vivo. Whether concomitant G-CSF and chemotherapy adversely affect myeloid cell proliferation have not been determined. Herein, we examined the effects of the concomitant use of pegfilgrastim and 5-fluorouracil on myeloid cells and peripheral blood cells in mouse models. Balb/c mice were treated intraperitoneally with 5-fluorouracil (20 μg/g b.w.) or a vehicle as a control for 5 days, and pegfilgrastim was administered subcutaneously at 1 μg/g b.w. on day 3. As a result, we demonstrated that the concomitant use of pegfilgrastim suppressed the 5-fluorouracil-induced decrease of granulocytic cells in both bone marrow and peripheral blood in mice. To assess the clinical efficacy of early administration of pegfilgrastim during docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil therapy in patients with esophageal cancer, we retrospectively identified 42 consecutive patients treated with this regimen. The incidence of both febrile neutropenia and grade 4 neutropenia was significantly lower in patients who received pegfilgrastim than in those who did not receive it (P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively). These results suggest that the concomitant use of pegfilgrastim and chemotherapy, consisting of continuous infusions of 5-fluorouracil, improved chemotherapy-induced neutropenia without detrimental effects on proliferating myeloid granulocytic cells.

A management of neutropenia using granulocyte colony stimulating factor support for chemotherapy consisted of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

An exploratory study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factor support for chemotherapy consisting of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, (2) a schedule to receive three courses of induction chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, 5-fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 days 1-5, every 3 weeks), (3) stage IB-III, (4) 20-75 years old, (5) 0-1 performance status, (6) preserved organ functions and (7) written informed consent. The endpoints were to evaluate the efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factor support including secondary prophylactic usage for docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients who previously had 'febrile neutropenia', or 'Grade 3 or 4 infection accompanied by grade 3 or 4 neutropenia' prophylactically received granulocyte colony stimulating factor support from day 7.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients were included in the analysis. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor support was given to 81.3%. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were 81.3 and 32.9%, respectively. The dose of anticancer agents was reduced in 48.4%. There were no treatment-related deaths. The relative dose intensity of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil were 92.7 ± 9.8%, 86.0 ± 15.6% and 91.8 ± 10.0%, respectively. In the secondary prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor support group, the neutrophil count significantly increased between day 7 and day 13 as compared with the non-prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor support group (P < 0.05 for each day).

CONCLUSIONS

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor support including secondary prophylactic usage may be feasible for maintaining the intensity of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer.

Retrospective study evaluating the safety of administering pegfilgrastim on the final day of 5-fluorouracil continuous intravenous infusion

BACKGROUND

Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor used to prevent neutropenia, is not indicated for administration within 24 h of completion of chemotherapy. The safety of administering pegfilgrastim in gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy regimens containing continuous intravenous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FUCI) on the day of completion of 5-fluorouracil has not been adequately studied.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis of patients with a gastrointestinal malignancy receiving pegfilgrastim on the final day of 5-FUCI was conducted. The primary end point was to determine the incidence of grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia when pegfilgrastim was administered on the final day of 5-FUCI. The secondary endpoint was to determine rate of dose reductions and treatment delays.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were reviewed from January 2010 to May 2017. The most common cancers were colorectal (25%) and pancreatic (60%), with 77% of patients having late stage disease. The risk of a patient developing grade 3 neutropenia was 0.010 (95% CI 0.002-0.029) and grade 4 neutropenia was 0.007 (95% CI 0.001-0.024). The risk of febrile neutropenia was 0.007 (95% CI 0.001-0.024). The risks of treatment delay and treatment reduction were 0.013 (95% CI 0.004-0.034) and 0.010 (95% CI 0.002-0.029), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The low risk of grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, as well as dose delays and/or reduction suggests that pegfilgrastim can be administered on the final day of 5-FUCI. Limitations of this study were that it was retrospective in nature and was conducted at a single institution.

Downstaging and Histological Effects Might Be Reliable Predictors of the Efficacy of DOC+CDDP+5-FU (DCF) as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Stage III or Borderline Resectable Esophageal Cancer: a Single Institute Experience

PURPOSE

In Japan, two courses of CDDP+5-FU (CF) therapy followed by surgery are accepted as a standard treatment for stage II/III esophageal cancer (EC) based on the results of the JCOG9907 trial. To gain a better survival, benefit especially for stage III patients in comparison with CF therapy, a three-arm phase III trial (neoadjuvant setting: CF vs. CF + radiation vs. DOC+CF [DCF]) is ongoing. We have aggressively performed DCF therapy for stage III or IV patients since October 2014. We herein review the outcomes of DCF therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of 27 patients with stage III or IV EC (male, n = 24; female, n = 3; median age, 70.0 years) who received DCF therapy.

RESULTS

The response rate was 48.1%. Downstaging was achieved over the course of treatment in 14 patients (51.9%). Twenty-six patients transitioned to surgery, with 25 receiving R0 resection. DCF-treated patients who achieved downstaging showed significantly longer relapse-free survival (RFS) than those without downstaging (p = 0.0002). DCF-treated patients with a grade ≥ 1b histological effect showed significantly longer RFS than those with a grade < 1b effect (p = 0.0282). The multivariate analysis showed that downstaging was the only factor significantly associated with RFS in DCF-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

DCF therapy for stage ≥ III esophageal carcinoma is both feasible and effective. These findings suggest that downstaging and the histological effect might predict the effects of DCF therapy for EC.

Early versus delayed administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor following chemotherapy in pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma

Background

The optimal timing of initiating granulocyte-colony stimulating factor following chemotherapy in pediatric patients has not been clearly defined. This study aimed to compare the administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on day 1 versus day 3 postchemotherapy in pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma.

Method

A retrospective study of pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor following chemotherapy between January 2016 and September 2018 at a comprehensive cancer center. The institution’s chemotherapy protocol for Ewing sarcoma was modified in April 2017 to include granulocyte-colony stimulating factor initiation on day 3 instead of day 1 post-chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization, duration of hospital stay, and chemotherapy delay were compared for patients before and after the protocol change.

Results

Over the study period, 250 cycles were evaluated with day 1 granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and 221 cycles with day 3 granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. There were no differences between the day 1 and day 3 groups in the number of cycles associated with Febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization (34 vs. 19, p = 0.086), and the length of Febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization (mean 4 ± 2.1 vs. 4.6 ± 1.8, p = 0.123). However, delay in chemotherapy due to neutropenia was reported in significantly more cycles in the day 1 group, compared to the day 3 group (37 vs. 16, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Febrile neutropenia resulting in hospital admission and the length of hospital stay was not different between pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on day 1 or day 3 post-chemotherapy. Chemotherapy delay due to neutropenia was higher in patients who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on day 1. Larger studies are required to fully determine the impact of delayed initiation of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

Early administration of pegfilgrastim for esophageal cancer treated with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil: A phase II study

Preoperative or induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, plus 5‐fluorouracil (DCF) is a promising regimen for advanced esophageal cancer. However, the DCF regimen is associated with a high risk of severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia (FN). However, the current guidelines fail to recommend an optimal dosing schedule of pegfilgrastim along with the DCF regimen to prevent FN. In the present study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of giving pegfilgrastim early on day 3 during DCF therapy for esophageal cancer. In this single‐arm phase II study, patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus were recruited. They were treated with the DCF therapy on days 1‐5, with pegfilgrastim given on day 3. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of grade 4 neutropenia. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of FN, grade 3 neutropenia, dose delays/reductions, antitumor effect, and safety. Between July 2016 and December 2018, 23 patients were enrolled. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia was 8.7% (95% confidence interval 1.1%‐28.0%). No patient experienced FN. Of the 19 patients who received two cycles of DCF, one required a dose reduction/treatment delay due to hematological toxicity in the second treatment cycle. No serious adverse events, considered relevant to pegfilgrastim, were observed. This is the first prospective study that showed an efficacious dosing schedule of pegfilgrastim for preventing hematological toxicity during DCF therapy. The results might be generalized to other similar regimens where continuous infusions of 5‐fluorouracil are used.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim prophylaxis among patients aged ≥65 years: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

BACKGROUND

Two recent evaluations reported that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be higher when pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is administered on same day as chemotherapy rather than per recommendation (1-3 days following chemotherapy). Such evidence is based largely on the experience of younger privately insured adults and may not be generalizable to older patients in US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (January 2008-September 2015) were employed. Patients were aged ≥65 years, had breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, received chemotherapy with intermediate/high risk for FN, and received PP in ≥1 cycle; cycles with PP were stratified based on administration day (same-day ["Day 0"] vs. 1-3 days following chemotherapy ["Days 1-3"]) and were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on Day 0 versus Days 1-3.

RESULTS

Study population included 65,003 patients who received PP in 261,184 cycles; in 5% of cycles, patients received PP on Day 0. Incidence proportion for FN in cycle 1 was 11.4% for Day 0 versus 8.4% for Days 1-3; adjusted OR was 1.4 (p < .001). Incidence proportion for FN when considering all cycles was 7.7% for Day 0 and 6.0% for Days 1-3; adjusted OR was 1.3 (p < .001). Adjusted ORs when considering all cycles and only inpatient FN episodes (1.3, p < .001) and the narrow definition for FN (1.5, p < .001) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare patients receiving chemotherapy and PP in US clinical practice, PP was administered before the recommended timing in 5% of cycles and FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles. Along with prior research, study findings support recently updated US practice guidelines indicating that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy.

Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor according to ASCO guidelines has no preventive effect on febrile neutropenia in patients treated with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in preventing febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients treated with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) chemotherapy remains controversial. We compared the incidence of FN in patients treated with and without primary prophylactic G-CSF.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 142 patients with locally advanced head and neck or esophageal cancer treated with TPF between January 2009 and March 2017. Among them, 116 patients started TPF without primary prophylactic G-CSF (control group) while 26 patients were given primary prophylactic G-CSF from day 7 of the first cycle of TPF (prophylactic group).

RESULTS

The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia during the first cycle of TPF was significantly higher in the control group than in the prophylactic group [58.6% (n = 68) vs. 30.8% (n = 8), p = 0.02]. However, the incidence of FN in the first cycle was not significantly different between the two groups [32 patients (27.5%) in the control group and 8 patients (30.8%) in the prophylactic group (p = 0.62)]. In addition, the mean relative dose intensity throughout all cycles of TPF, as well as the survival time and response after TPF, were also not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary prophylactic G-CSF from day 7 of the first cycle of TPF did not reduce the incidence of FN. Our findings suggest that the timing of primary prophylactic G-CSF, as recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, should be modified to reduce the incidence of FN in TPF.

Induction chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: role, controversy, and future directions

Background

The value of induction chemotherapy (ICT) remains under investigation despite decades of research. New advancements in the field, specifically regarding the induction regimen of choice, have reignited interest in this approach for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). Sufficient evidence has accumulated regarding the benefits and superiority of TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil) over the chemotherapy doublet cisplatin and fluorouracil. We therefore sought to collate and interpret the available data and further discuss the considerations for delivering ICT safely and optimally selecting suitable post-ICT regimens.

Design

We nonsystematically reviewed published phase III clinical trials on TPF ICT in a variety of LA SCCHN patient populations conducted between 1990 and 2017.

Results

TPF may confer survival and organ preservation benefits in a subgroup of patients with functionally inoperable or poor-prognosis LA SCCHN. Additionally, patients with operable disease or good prognosis (who are not candidates for organ preservation) may benefit from TPF induction in terms of reducing local and distant failure rates and facilitating treatment deintensification in selected populations. The safe administration of TPF requires treatment by a multidisciplinary team at an experienced institution. The management of adverse events associated with TPF and post-ICT radiotherapy-based treatment is crucial. Finally, post-ICT chemotherapy alternatives to cisplatin concurrent with radiotherapy (i.e. cetuximab or carboplatin plus radiotherapy) appear promising and must be investigated further.

Conclusions

TPF is an evidence-based ICT regimen of choice in LA SCCHN and confers benefits in suitable patients when it is administered safely by an experienced multidisciplinary team and paired with the optimal post-ICT regimen, for which, however, no consensus currently exists.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by day of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice from 2010 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is recommended 1-3 days following administration of chemotherapy during the cycle. Some patients, however, receive PP before or after the recommended timing. While evidence suggests that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be lower when PP is administered per recommendation, such evidence is based on older data. We undertook a new study to compare FN risk between patients who received PP on the last day of chemotherapy ("day 0") or 4-5 days following chemotherapy ("days 4-5"), versus 1-3 days following chemotherapy ("days 1-3"), using recent data from US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (2010-2016) were employed. Patients received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and PP in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with PP were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on day 0 or days 4-5, vs. days 1-3, using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The study population included 53,814 patients who received PP in 217,273 cycles; in 9% of cycles, patients received PP on day 0 (8%) or days 4-5 (<1%). Odds of FN in cycle 1 were significantly higher among patients receiving PP on day 0 (OR: 1.4 [95% CI: 1.2-1.7]) or days 4-5 (1.9 [1.2-3.0]), vs. days 1-3, in that cycle. Results for subsequent cycles of chemotherapy were comparable to those for the first cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients receiving PP in recent US clinical practice, PP was administered before or after the recommended timing in 9% of cycles. FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles providing additional real-world evidence that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy in alignment with recently updated US practice guidelines.

The effectiveness and safety of same-day versus next-day administration of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are commonly used in clinical practice to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN). US and EU prescribing information and treatment guidelines from the NCCN, ASCO, and EORTC specify that pegfilgrastim, a long-acting (LA) G-CSF, should be administered at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Nevertheless, many patients receive LA G-CSFs on the same day as chemotherapy. This systematic literature review evaluated the relative merits of same-day versus next-day dosing of LA G-CSFs.

METHODS

A broad Ovid MEDLINE® and Embase® literature search was conducted that examined all publications indexed before May 9, 2016 that compared same-day versus next-day LA G-CSF administration. A congress abstract literature search included congresses from January 1, 2011 to April 6, 2016. The parameters for this review were prospectively delineated in a research protocol and adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines.

RESULTS

The first part of the systematic literature search identified 1736 publications. After elimination of duplicates, title/abstract screening was conducted on 1440 records, and full text review was conducted on 449 publications. Eleven publications met all criteria and are included in this systematic review; of these, four included data from randomized or single arm prospective studies, and seven were retrospective studies. In most studies included in this review and across a variety of tumor types, administration of pegfilgrastim at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy resulted in improved patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from multiple publications support administration of pegfilgrastim at least 1 day after chemotherapy.

Induction chemotherapy with concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck: a meta-analysis

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been considered to be the standard of care for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Whether induction chemotherapy (IC) with CCRT will further improve the clinical outcomes or not is still unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the two regimens for LA-SCCHN. Literature searches were carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biology Medicine from inception to November 2014. Five prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 922 patients were included in meta-analysis. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) or relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Compared with CCRT, IC with CCRT showed no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) or locoregional recurrence rate (LRR), but could increase risks of grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia (P = 0.0009) and leukopenia (P = 0.04). In contrast, distant metastasis rate (DMR) decreased (P = 0.006) and complete response rate (CR) improved (P = 0.010) for IC with CCRT. In conclusion, the current studies do not support the use of IC with CCRT over CCRT, and the further positioning of IC with CCRT as standard treatment for LA-SCCHN will come from more RCTs directly comparing IC followed by CCRT with CCRT.