Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 3/2015

01-03-2015 | Original Article

Impact of pegylated filgrastim in comparison to filgrastim for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) on high-dose cytarabine (HIDAC) consolidation chemotherapy

Authors: Grace Kam, Richard Yiu, Yvonne Loh, Ai Leen Ang, Ling Ling Yueh, Yeow Tee Goh, Gee Chuan Wong

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 3/2015

Login to get access

Excerpt

Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in complete remission (CR) are treated with consolidation chemotherapy to improve their long-term remission rates. However, consolidation chemotherapy causes significant cytopenias, particularly grade IV neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <0.5 × 109/L) [1]. Such severe neutropenia is associated with increased risk of febrile neutropenia, infection and mortality [2]. In AML, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSF) such as filgrastim has been shown to reduce febrile neutropenia, duration of neutropenia and hospital admission and requirement for parenteral antibiotics [3, 4]. There is no impact on the duration of CR and overall survival (OS), although a recent publication showed that OS was better with the use of filgrastim in any cycle of cytarabine consolidation chemotherapy [5]. Because of the findings in the studies using filgrastim [3, 4], the 2013 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Guidelines for AML and the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines have recommended the use of GCSF in the supportive care for consolidation chemotherapy in AML [1, 6]. …
Literature
1.
O’Donnell MR, Tallman MS, Abboud CN, Altman JK, Appelbaum FR, Arber DA et al (2013) Acute myeloid leukemia, version 2.2013. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 11(9):1047–1055
2.
Klastersky J (2004) Management of fever in neutropenic patients with different risks of complications. Clin Infect Dis 39(Suppl 1):S32–S37PubMedCrossRef
3.
Harousseau JL, Witz B, Lioure B, Hunault-Berger M, Desablens B, Delain M et al (2000) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after intensive consolidation chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia: results of a randomized trial of the Groupe Ouest-Est Leucemies Aigues Myeloblastiques. J Clin Oncol 18(4):780–787PubMed
4.
Heil G, Hoelzer D, Sanz MA, Lechner K, Liu Yin JA, Papa G et al (1997) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of filgrastim in remission induction and consolidation therapy for adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Int Acute Myeloid Leuk Study Group Blood 90(12):4710–4718
5.
Bradley AM, Deal AM, Buie LW, Van DH (2012) Neutropenia-associated outcomes in adults with acute myeloid leukemia receiving cytarabine consolidation chemotherapy with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Pharmacotherapy 32(12):1070–1077. doi:10.​1002/​phar.​1150 PubMedCrossRef
6.
Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, Ozer H, Armitage JO, Balducci L et al (2006) Update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 24(19):3187–3205PubMedCrossRef
7.
Roskos LK, Lum P, Lockbaum P, Schwab G, Yang BB (2006) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol 46(7):747–757PubMedCrossRef
8.
Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J, Galid A, Guillem V, Gascon P et al (2003) A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14(1):29–35PubMedCrossRef
9.
Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, Jones SE, Shogan J, Savin M et al (2002) Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20(3):727–731PubMedCrossRef
10.
Grigg A, Solal-Celigny P, Hoskin P, Taylor K, McMillan A, Forstpointner R et al (2003) Open-label, randomized study of pegfilgrastim vs. daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 44(9):1503–1508PubMedCrossRef
11.
Vose JM, Crump M, Lazarus H, Emmanouilides C, Schenkein D, Moore J et al (2003) Randomized, multicenter, open-label study of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim after chemotherapy for lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 21(3):514–519PubMedCrossRef
12.
Wolf M, Bentley M, Marlton P, Horvath N, Lewis ID, Spencer A et al (2006) Pegfilgrastim to support CHOP-14 in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 47(11):2344–2350PubMedCrossRef
13.
Lane SW, Crawford J, Kenealy M, Cull G, Seymour JF, Prince HM et al (2006) Safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim compared to granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) supporting a dose-intensive, rapidly cycling anti-metabolite containing chemotherapy regimen (Hyper-CVAD) for lymphoid malignancy. Leuk Lymphoma 47(9):1813–1817PubMedCrossRef
14.
Braess J, Spiekermann K, Staib P, Gruneisen A, Wormann B, Ludwig WD et al (2009) Dose-dense induction with sequential high-dose cytarabine and mitoxantone (S-HAM) and pegfilgrastim results in a high efficacy and a short duration of critical neutropenia in de novo acute myeloid leukemia: a pilot study of the AMLCG. Blood 113(17):3903–3910. doi:10.​1182/​blood-2008-07-16284215 PubMedCrossRef
15.
Derbel O, Cannas G, Le QH, Elhamri M, Chelghoum Y, Nicolas-Virelizier E et al (2010) A single dose pegfilgrastim for supporting neutrophil recovery in patients treated for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia by the EMA 2000 schedule. Hematology 15(3):125–131. doi:10.​1179/​102453309x125833​4711365416 PubMedCrossRef
16.
Sierra J, Szer J, Kassis J, Herrmann R, Lazzarino M, Thomas X et al (2008) A single dose of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim for supporting neutrophil recovery in patients treated for low-to-intermediate risk acute myeloid leukemia: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial. BMC Cancer 8:195. doi:10.​1186/​1471-2407-8-195 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
17.
Mayer RJ, Davis RB, Schiffer CA, Berg DT, Powell BL, Schulman P et al (1994) Intensive postremission chemotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Leuk Group B N Engl J Med 331(14):896–903CrossRef
18.
Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA et al (2011) Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis 52(4):e56–e93. doi:10.​1093/​cid/​cir073 PubMedCrossRef
19.
Schulman S, Kearon C (2005) Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 3(4):692–694PubMedCrossRef
20.
Schlenk RF, Dohner K, Groner S, Hartmann PC, Krautner J, Ganser A et al (2006) Impact of pegfilgrastim on hematological reconstitution and incidence of neutropenic fever after consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine in acute myeloid leukemia: comparative analysis between AMLSG 07–04 and the German AML Intergroup Trial. blood (ASH annual meeting abstracts) 108: Abstract 2020
21.
Metadata
Title
Impact of pegylated filgrastim in comparison to filgrastim for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) on high-dose cytarabine (HIDAC) consolidation chemotherapy
Authors
Grace Kam
Richard Yiu
Yvonne Loh
Ai Leen Ang
Ling Ling Yueh
Yeow Tee Goh
Gee Chuan Wong
Publication date
01-03-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2417-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Supportive Care in Cancer 3/2015 Go to the issue

Original Article

Effect of muscle mass on toxicity and survival in patients with colon cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy

Original Article

Assessing the impact of diagnosis and the related supportive care needs in patients with cutaneous melanoma

Original Article

Capitalizing on the “teachable moment” to promote healthy dietary changes among cancer survivors: the perspectives of health care providers

Original Article

Rebuilding self-confidence after cancer: a feasibility study of life-coaching

Original Article

Late effects of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (LEON)—cross-sectional cohort study of patients with colorectal cancer surviving at least 2 years

Original Article

Distance from treating hospital and colorectal cancer survivors’ quality of life: a gendered analysis
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits