Search

Background: The chemotherapy regimens recommended for both rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) and Ewing sarcoma (ES) patients are myelosuppressive and can reduce the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and subsequently increase the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). However, only a few studies have focused on the efficacy and safety of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) drugs in pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS and ES. Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim, a biosimilar of pegfilgrastim, in prophylaxis of FN for pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES., Methods: In this single-arm, single-center, prospective study, pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES were enrolled to receive either VAC (vincristine, cyclophosphamide, dactinomycin) regimen or VDC (vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin) regimen in a 3-week cycle, followed by treatment with mecapegfilgrastim (100 μg/kg, maximum 6 mg) given at 24 h after completing chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of FN. Secondary endpoints included the incidence rate of grade 4 neutropenia, duration of ANC ≤ 0.5 × 10 9 /L, incidence rate of chemotherapy delay or reduction, use of antibiotics, and safety profile., Results: In total, 2 of the 30 (6.7%, 95% CI: 0.82-22.07) patients experienced FN after the first cycle of chemotherapy. Eight (26.7%, 95% CI: 12.28-45.89) patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia after receiving prophylactic mecapegfilgrastim. Eight patients experienced ANC ≤ 0.5 × 10 9 /L with a median duration of 4.5 days; among them, 6 patients reached the lowest point of their ANC level on day 7, and 5 of them recovered by day 10. No dose reductions, delays, or discontinuation of chemotherapy was reported. Twenty-one (70.0%) patients received antibiotics during the treatment period. No patient experienced FN in the 0-5 years and the 13-18 years groups, and 2 patients experienced FN in the 6-12 years group. Two patients, 6 patients, and no patient experienced grade 4 neutropenia in the 0-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-18 years groups, respectively., Conclusion: Mecapegfilgrastim showed acceptable efficacy and safety profile in pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES. Further randomized studies with large sample size are warranted., Trial Registration: This clinical trial was registered at Chictr.org.cn (No.ChiCTR1900022249). Registered on March 31, 2019., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Chemotherapy for breast cancer can cause neutropenia, increasing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and serious infections. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis has been explored to mitigate these risks. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the "Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development" using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing using G-CSF as primary prophylaxis in invasive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and FN incidence. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with sufficient data., Results: Eight RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis, and five RCTs were meta-analyzed for FN incidence. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in FN incidence with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (risk difference [RD] = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.43, p = 0.04). Evidence for improvement in OS with G-CSF was inconclusive. Four RCTs suggested a tendency for increased pain with G-CSF, but statistical significance was not reported., Conclusions: Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is strongly recommended for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN. While the impact on OS is unclear, the benefits of reducing FN are considered to outweigh the potential harm of increased pain., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Backgroud: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days., Methods: This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes., Results: Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/μL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent., Conclusions: A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a relatively common complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can prevent FN and chemotherapy dose delays and enable the use of the higher dose intensities associated with a survival benefit; however, G‑CSF is not always used optimally. Five medical oncologists with a special interest in supportive care met to discuss the evidence for prophylaxis with G‑CSF to improve survival in cancer patients, identify reasons why this is not always done, and suggest potential solutions. The dose intensity of chemotherapy is critical for maximizing survival in cancer patients but may be reduced as a result of hematological toxicity, such as FN. Use of G‑CSF has been shown to increase the chances of achieving the planned dose intensity in various cancers, including early-stage breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. All physicians treating cancer patients should consider the use of G‑CSF prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy, paying particular attention to patient-related risk factors., Key Messages: Strategies to optimize G‑CSF use include educating medical oncologists and pharmacists on the appropriate use of G‑CSF and informing patients about the efficacy of G‑CSF and its potential adverse effects. It is hoped that the evidence and opinions presented will help to encourage appropriate use of G‑CSF to support cancer patients at risk of FN in achieving the best possible outcomes from chemotherapy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, dose reduction or withdrawal is often preferred in the management of adverse events in the treatment of urothelial cancer. It is also important to maintain therapeutic intensity in order to control disease progression and thereby relieve symptoms, such as hematuria, infection, bleeding, and pain, as well as to prolong the survival. In this clinical question, we compared treatment with primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF to maintain therapeutic intensity with conventional standard therapy without G-CSF and examined the benefits and risks as major outcomes. A detailed literature search for relevant studies was performed using PubMed, Ichu-shi Web, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and evaluated independently by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and the risk ratios with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated and summarized in a meta-analysis. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, two of which were reviewed in the meta-analysis of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) therapy, and one randomized controlled study showed a reduction in the incidence of FN. Primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF may be beneficial, as shown in a randomized controlled study of dose-dense MVAC therapy. However, there are no studies on other regimens, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen (dose-dense MVAC)., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel (RD) can cause febrile neutropenia (FN), which frequently requires the prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim. However, the effects of prophylactic pegfilgrastim on FN prevention, therapeutic efficacy, and prognosis after RD have not been fully evaluated in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two hundred and eighty-eight patients with advanced NSCLC who received RD as second-line therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy plus PD-1 blockade were included. Patients were divided into groups with and without prophylactic pegfilgrastim, and adverse events, efficacy, and prognosis were compared between both groups. Of the 288 patients, 247 received prophylactic pegfilgrastim and 41 did not. The frequency of grade 3/4 neutropenia was 62 patients (25.1%) in the pegfilgrastim group and 28 (68.3%) in the control group (p < 0.001). The frequency of FN was 25 patients (10.1%) in the pegfilgrastim group and 10 (24.4%) in the control group (p = 0.018). The objective response rate was 31.2% and 14.6% in the pegfilgrastim and control groups (p = 0.039), respectively. The disease control rate was 72.9% in the pegfilgrastim group and 51.2% in the control group (p = 0.009). Median progression free survival was 4.3 months in the pegfilgrastim group and 2.5 months in the control group (p = 0.002). The median overall survival was 12.8 and 8.1 months in the pegfilgrastim and control groups (p = 0.004), respectively. Prophylactic pegfilgrastim for RD reduced the frequency of grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia and did not appear to be detrimental to patient outcome RD.Clinical Trial Registration Number: UMIN000042333., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Febrile neutropenia(FN)causes a prolonged treatment schedule and decreased relative dose intensity(RDI)during cancer chemotherapy, which adversely affects prognosis. In recent years, dose-dense(dd)chemotherapy has been used as adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer based on the results of improved disease-free survival according to meta-analysis data. Regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer, taxanes and trastuzumab with the addition of pertuzumab have shown higher pathological complete response rates and elevated incidences of FN. One hundred seventy-six patients received pegfilgrastim(PEG)prophylaxis between January 2011 and January 2023. Until 2019, the median day of PEG prophylaxis was day 4 from chemotherapy completion(days 2- 3, 14 cases; day 4, 41 cases; and day 5, 8 cases)with antibiotic prophylaxis in 58 patients(92%). FN was observed in 19 cases(30%). The RDIs of TC and FEC were 96.8% and 96.0%, respectively. Meanwhile, the median day of PEG prophylaxis after 2020 was day 2 from chemotherapy completion(days 2-3, 108 cases; day 4, 4 cases; and day 5, 1 case)without antibiotic prophylaxis. FN was not observed in any of the cases. The RDI of all regimens was 99.7%. Although there were some differences in chemotherapy regimens, an earlier timing of PEG prophylaxis(especially 24-48 hours from chemotherapy completion)has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN and increase the RDI.

Objectives: To identify the predictive factors for the development of febrile neutropenia (FN) in the course of chemotherapy for patients with germ cell tumors., Methods: From January 2005 to December 2018, 80 patients were treated with induction chemotherapy for advanced germ cell tumors at Kanagawa Cancer Center Hospital, Japan. Of these, we retrospectively analyzed 267 cycles of chemotherapy. The incidence of FN was used as the objective variable. As predictive factors, we analyzed age, international germ cell consensus classification (IGCCC), laboratory data at the start of chemotherapy in each cycle, length of the largest metastatic lesion, number of cycles, and prophylactic use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)., Results: We finally analyzed 267 cycles in 78 patients. The median age was 36 years (15-64). There was a total of 267 cycles. FN occurred in 40 cycles (15%) in 31 patients (40%). The first cycle was accompanied by a significantly higher FN than the subsequent cycles (p < 0.001). The univariate analysis identified age ≧36 years (p = 0.001), creatinine clearance (CCr) <70 (p < 0.001), serum albumin <3.3 (p = 0.002), maximum tumor diameter ≧60 mm (p = 0.036), and first cycle as significant risk factors. The multivariate analysis identified age, CCr, and first cycle as independent predictive factors of FN development., Conclusion: We identified older age, renal dysfunction, and first cycle of chemotherapy as predictive factors for FN. No statistically significant difference was shown in the usage of prophylactic G-CSF. Special attention should be given to FN in patients with high-risk factors., (© 2023 The Japanese Urological Association.)

This study aimed to estimate the medical costs associated with febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim and evaluate its impact on survival outcomes in daily practice in Japan. In this single-center retrospective study, we obtained data from 296 Japanese patients with breast cancer receiving fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC)-100 chemotherapy; the patients were divided into the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups. We analyzed the median costs of chemotherapy, drugs for all adverse events (AEs) and FN, and hospitalization due to FN. We also assessed the survival outcomes. The pegfilgrastim group showed a significantly higher median total cost (JPY 872320.0 vs. JPY 466715.0, p<0.001). This difference was associated with the prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim. The median costs of the drugs for all AE treatments were JPY 9030.4 and JPY 24690.6, with the non-pegfilgrastim group showing a significantly higher cost (p<0.001). In 11 patients hospitalized for FN management, no significant difference in hospitalization cost was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (JPY 512390.0 vs. JPY 307555.0, p=0.102). No significant difference in the 3-year overall survival was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (79.9% vs. 88.3%, p=0.672). In this study, although the total medical cost in daily practice increased because of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, the 3-year overall survival was not impacted by the use of pegfilgrastim. Our study data suggested that the primary prophylaxis pegfilgrastim should be used during FEC-100 chemotherapy based on the patient-related FN risk factors, instead of routine use.

Background: Diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan measurements is highly variable depending on the study population, diagnostic procedures, and treatment procedures. We aimed to evaluate the effect of posaconazole prophylaxis and empiric antifungal treatment upon diagnostic accuracy of GM measurements in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), bronchial lavage (BL), and serum in hematological malignancy population., Methods: Patients hospitalized in a single tertiary care center with hematologic malignancies undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) with a preliminary diagnosis of IPA were retrospectively included., Results: In all the study population (n = 327), AUC for BAL, BL, and serum GM were as follows: 0.731 [0.666-0.790], 0.869 [0.816-0.912], and 0.610 [0.540-0.676] with BL samples having the best diagnostic value. GM measurements in patients under posaconazole prophylaxis (n = 114) showed similar diagnostic performance. While specificity was similar between patients with and without posaconazole prophylaxis, sensitivity of GM measurements was lower in patients with prophylaxis. Analyses with patient classified according to antifungal treatment at the time of FOB procedure (n = 166) showed a decreased diagnostic accuracy in serum GM and BAL GM measurements related with the duration of treatment. However, BAL, BL, and serum GM measurements presented similar sensitivity and specificity in higher cut-off values in longer durations of antifungal treatment., Conclusion: Our study shows that posaconazole prophylaxis and active short-term (3 days) antifungal treatment do not significantly affect overall diagnostic performance of GM measurements in bronchoalveolar lavage and bronchial lavage samples. However, using different cut-off values for patients receiving active treatment might be suggested to increase sensitivity., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) receiving R-CHOP-21. The prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can significantly reduce the risk of FN. International guidelines recommend G-CSFs for patients receiving chemotherapy with FN risk of 20% or 10 to 20% with defined risk factors. However, there are few studies on the incidence and risk factors of FN in patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP-21, especially in patients without primary G-CSF prophylaxis., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis for the clinical data of 103 patients with DLBCL who underwent first R-CHOP-21 without primary G-CSF prophylaxis. The objective of the assessment was the incidence and risk factors of FN after the first chemotherapy cycle., Results: After the first chemotherapy cycle, the incidence of FN was 20.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 65 years, bone marrow involvement, albumin < 35 g/L, and average relative dose intensity ≥ 80% were independent risk factors for FN. According to risk factors, we created a risk score system. The incidence of FN in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups was 5.6%, 17.2%, and 61.9%, respectively., Conclusion: Our data indicated that R-CHOP-21 itself is associated with a high-risk regiment for FN. We recommend that intermediate/high-risk patients should actively consider primary G-CSF prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of FN after chemotherapy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy., Methods: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. A total of 122 subjects received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy (75 mg/m 2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m 2 doxorubicin). Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to subcutaneously inject a single 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1, and all subjects received efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded., Results: For the primary endpoint, the mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.3 days and 3.9 days for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo respectively (95% CI, 2.3, 3.4). As the lower bound of the 95% CI was > 0, superiority of efbemalenograstim alfa over placebo can be declared. In addition, the incidence of FN in Cycle 1 was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.0016). Patients in the efbemalenograstim alfa group required less intravenous antibiotics (3.6% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.0119). Most adverse events were consistent with those expected for breast cancer patient receiving TA chemotherapy., Conclusion: Efbemalenograstim alfa is effective and safe for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients who are receiving TA chemotherapy., Trial Registration: NCT02872103, August 19, 2016., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Pegfilgrastim is a widely used long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) that prevents febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of chemotherapy-related FN events and other adverse events (AEs) during chemotherapy in Korean patients with breast cancer treated with pegfilgrastim as secondary prophylactic support., Materials and Methods: This was a multicenter, open-label, prospective, observational study. A total of 1255 patients were enrolled from 43 institutions. The incidence of FN was evaluated as the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints included (1) incidence of bone pain, (2) proportion of patients with a relative dose intensity (RDI) of ≥85%, and (3) proportion of patients with AE., Results: Pegfilgrastim administration reduced FN by 11.8-1.6%. The highest incidence of bone pain was observed at the time point of the 1st day after the administration and mild bone pain was the most common of all bone pain severity. The mean RDI was 98.5 ± 7.3%, and the proportion of the patients with and RDI≥85% was 96.9% (1169/1233). AEs were reported in 52.6% of the patients, and serious drug reactions occurred in only 0.7%., Conclusion: The use of pegfilgrastim as secondary prophylaxis was effective and safe for preventing FN in patients with breast cancer who were treated with chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: There is no meta-analysis about the effects of pegfilgrastim on the occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric/adolescent cancer patients. The study explored the efficacy of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN in children/adolescents with cancer., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before April 7, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of FN. Effect size (ES) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcome. The ES represented the rate of FN, and the STATA 'metaprop' command was used to synthesize the rate., Results: Eight studies were included, comprising 167 patients and 550 courses of treatment. There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN in children receiving chemotherapy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.20-2.23, P  = 0.520). In patients receiving pegfilgrastim, the rate of FN was 25.6% (95% CI: 14.9%-36.3%), the rate of grade 4 FN was 38.3% (95% CI: 19.2%-59.5%), the rate of severe neutropenia (SN) was 40.5% (95% CI: 35.1%-46.1%), and the rate of treatment delays due to FN was 4.8% (95% CI: 0.8%-11.3%)., Discussion: The number of studies that could be included was small; therefore, a specific type of cancer or a specific treatment could be studied. Heterogeneity was high., Conclusion: There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN. The use of pegfilgrastim was still associated with rates of FN, grade 4 FN, severe neutropenia, and treatment delays due to FN in pediatric cancer patients.

Purpose: Limited knowledge is available on the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in intermediate-risk patients and the rationale for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in these patients. We aimed to estimate the rate at which patients associated with intermediate risk (10-20%) of FN would develop ≥ 1 episode of FN with a commonly used chemotherapy regimen in clinical practice., Methods: This prospective, real-world, observational, multinational, multicenter study (December 2016-October 2019) recruited patients with solid tumors or Hodgkin's/non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Patients receiving chemotherapy with intermediate risk of FN, but not G-CSF as primary prophylaxis were included and observed for the duration of the chemotherapy (≤ 6 cycles and ≤ 30 days after the last chemotherapy administration)., Results: In total, 364 patients (median age, 56 years) with 1601 cycles of chemotherapy were included in the analysis. The incidence of FN was 5% in cycle 1, 3% in cycles 2-3, and 1% in cycles 4-6. The rate of patients with ≥ 1 episode of FN was 9%, and 59% of FN events were reported during cycle 1. The rate of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 11%, and 15% of patients experienced ≥ 1 episode of grade 4 neutropenia., Conclusions: Overall, the incidence of FN was low, with a high incidence in cycle 1 and a decrease in the subsequent cycles. These results provide the real FN risk for common chemotherapy regimens in patients generally excluded from clinical trials. Prophylactic G-CSF in intermediate-risk patients could be considered as per clinician's judgement., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

To assess whether prophylactic use of Levofloxacin would reduce the number of febrile neutropenia episodes during the induction phase, a single-centre, case-control study was carried out. Data was collected prospectively of patients who received Levofloxacin prophylaxis during the induction chemotherapy from September 2019 till October 2020. The cases were compared with historical controls who did not receive antibiotics prophylaxis. A total of 121 patients were enrolled, among which 61 patients were cases, whereas 60 patients were controls. The patients who received Levofloxacin prophylaxis had lower rate of febrile neutropenia episodes than patients who did not receive any prophylaxis (p≤0.01) (odds ratio [OR]:0.23, CI 95%). No significant difference in induction mortality was seen between the two groups (p≤0.14). Levofloxacin prophylaxis reduced the rate of febrile neutropenia episodes among patients, but it did not affect the infection related mortality.

Purpose: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany., Methods: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty., Results: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim., Conclusions: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Prophylactic growth-factor therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with breast cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy. However, little is known about the protective benefit early in the chemotherapy cycle., Methods: To assess the relationship between G-CSF prophylaxis and incidence of FN/infection in week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, a retrospective study was conducted using Medicare claims from 2005 through 2020 among patients with breast cancer initiating high-risk chemotherapy. Two cohorts were compared based on G-CSF prophylaxis within 3 days following chemotherapy initiation. The primary outcome was FN or infection, defined as hospitalization with neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were a stricter definition of FN and infection-related hospitalization. Unadjusted and regression-adjusted proportions of patients experiencing each outcome during week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle were compared., Results: Of 78,810 patients meeting all inclusion criteria (>98% female; mean age, 69 years), 79% initiated TC (docetaxel/cyclophosphamide), 14% TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab), and 7% TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). Among patients receiving G-CSF (74%), incidence of first-cycle FN/infection was lower compared with patients not receiving G-CSF (overall, 6% vs 13%; TAC, 12% vs 19%; TC, 6% vs 12%; TCH, 5% vs 15%). However, patients who received G-CSF were generally more likely to experience FN/infection in week 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24 for all; 1.73 for TAC; 1.35 for TC; and 0.76 for TCH). Results were similar for strictly defined FN (overall aOR, 1.29 for week 1 and 0.12 for beyond week 1) and infection-related hospitalization (overall aOR, 1.33 for week 1 and 0.27 for beyond week 1)., Conclusions: Overall, the rates of chemotherapy-related FN and infection in week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle are similar for patients receiving and not receiving G-CSF, suggesting continued risk in week 1 despite prophylactic G-CSF.

The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors and improve preventive strategies for febrile neutropenia (FEN) in children with leukemia who were receiving ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. The study included 100 children with leukemia [n=80 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and n=20 with acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML)]. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they had three or fewer FEN episodes (Group 1) or more than three FEN episodes (Group 2). Group 1 contained 63 (63%) of the 100 patients, while Group 2 contained 37 (37%). Older age (≥7 years), leukemia type, prolonged neutropenia (>10 days), and the presence of neutropenia and hypogammaglobulinemia at diagnosis were all risk factors for having more than three FEN episodes. Our findings suggest that, in addition to ciprofloxacin prophylaxis, identifying risk factors and improving preventive strategies could help reduce FEN episodes in children with leukemia., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors., (©Copyright 2023 by Turkish Society of Hematology Turkish Journal of Hematology, Published by Galenos Publishing House.)

Historically, febrile neutropenia (FN) has constituted a common but life-threatening emergency in pediatric oncology patients. As such, hygiene precautions have consistently been recommended for immunosuppressed patients. These precautions, however, were more strictly and widely adopted during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Universal mask mandates, emphasis on hand hygiene, and encouragement of social distancing were some of the many initiatives introduced in an effort to reduce transmission of the virus. There is little data available regarding whether the universal adoption of these precautions was associated with any changes in the incidence of hospitalizations for FN in pediatric oncology patients. A retrospective chart review was utilized to evaluate newly diagnosed patients admitted for FN in the first 14 months of the pandemic compared with the same time period during the previous year. During the pandemic, the admission rate for FN was 28.9%, compared with 29.1% prepandemic ( P = 0.97). There was no significant difference in causative organisms when comparing time periods. In addition, the presence of a state government-enforced mask mandate was associated with an increased admission rate for FN during the pandemic period., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: The docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin (DCF) regimen is an effective form of chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer. However, the incidence of adverse events, such as febrile neutropenia (FN), is high. This study retrospectively examined whether pegfilgrastim treatment reduces FN development during DCF therapy., Patients and Methods: This study evaluated 52 patients who were diagnosed with esophageal cancer and underwent DCF therapy at Jikei Daisan Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, between 2016 and 2020. They were divided into non-pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim-treated groups, and side-effects of chemotherapy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim were examined., Results: Eighty-six cycles of DCF therapy were conducted (33 and 53 cycles, respectively). FN was observed in 20 (60.6%) and seven (13.2%) cases, respectively (p<0.001). The lowest absolute neutrophil count during chemotherapy was significantly lower in the non-pegfilgrastim group (p<0.001), and the number of days until improvement from nadir was significantly shorter in the pegfilgrastim group (9 vs. 11 days; p<0.001). No significant difference was found in the onset of grade 2 or more adverse events by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. However, renal dysfunction was significantly lower in the pegfilgrastim group (30.7% vs. 60.6%, p=0.038). Hospitalization costs were also significantly lower in this group (692,839 vs. 879,431 Japanese yen, p=0.028)., Conclusion: This study revealed the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in prevention of FN in patients treated with DCF., (Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Preventing infection and managing febrile neutropenia (FN) is mandatory for children with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. However, the current situation in Japan is unknown., Methods: We conducted a nationwide web-based questionnaire survey in 153 institutions treating childhood cancer in Japan. We asked about the type prophylaxis used to prevent infectious disease and manage FN. If patients with childhood cancer were managed by both pediatricians and surgeons at the same institution, we asked both to reply., Results: We received replies from 117 departments at 111 centers: of these, 108 were from pediatricians. Laminar air flow for neutropenic patients, and frequent hand sanitization with ethanol, were widespread. Twenty-eight percent and forty percent of departments performed active surveillance by taking cultures from patients and the environment, respectively, before initiation of chemotherapy. Forty-four percent of departments administered prophylactic intravenous antibiotics according to patient status. Many departments measured serum (1,3)-β-D glucan, procalcitonin, and aspergillus galactomannan at the onset of FN. Twenty-eight percent of departments used carbapenem as empirical therapy for FN. Some departments used prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for acute leukemia. Seventy-two percent of departments used prophylactic immunoglobulin for hypogammaglobinemia caused by chemotherapy. Palivizumab was administered widely for respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis in immunocompromised infants., Conclusion: As a whole, intensive care for infectious prophylaxis or FN is applied in Japan; however, the methods vary among centers, and some are excessive or inadequate. Therefore, it is desirable to conduct clinical trials and establish adequate care protocols for infection in children with cancer in Japan., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars compared with the originator product is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) among users of pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb and pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and the originator product. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2019 IBM MarketScan databases to assess comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars for prevention of FN among patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Patients with cancer, including breast, lung, colorectal, esophageal and gastric, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses were selected. We further selected patients who used pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars within 3 days of chemotherapy completion. FN-associated hospitalizations were measured by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. After 1:1 propensity score matching, we used equivalence (with a margin of 6%) hypothesis tests to compare FN-related hospitalization risk in the first cycle and across all cycles between biosimilars and originator users. RESULTS: A total of 2,045 patients were included, of which 445 (21.8%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, 636 (31.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and 964 (47.1%) used pegfilgrastim originator. After matching, 13 out of 445 originator users and 17 out of 445 pegfilgrastim-jmdb users developed FN after the first chemotherapy cycle (risk difference was 0.9%; P < 0.001 for equivalence test indicating statistical equivalence). After matching, 14 out of 633 originator users and 16 out of 633 pegfilgrastim-cbqv users developed FN (risk difference was 0.32%; P < 0.001 for equivalence test indicating statistical equivalence). Results across all cycles (including the first cycle) were consistent with that in the first cycle. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, there was no difference in FN risk between patients receiving pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars in the first cycle and across all cycles. These results add further to the current evidence on pegfilgrastim biosimilars and support wider adoption of pegfilgrastim biosimilars among payers, providers, and patients. Future studies assessing the tolerability, side effects, and other safety issues of pegfilgrastim biosimilars are needed.

Purpose: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens., Methods: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites., Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%)., Conclusion: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Purpose: Oral hygiene is crucial in the management of oral and febrile complications during chemotherapy for cancer. This study aimed to investigate the impact of oral hygiene on the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) throughout the course of chemotherapy for breast cancer., Methods: A total of 137 patients with breast cancer who underwent four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) combination therapy or docetaxel alone were assessed for oral hygiene by quantifying the number of oral bacteria they harbored. These patients received professional oral health care (POHC). Eighteen patients underwent primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. The relationship between oral bacteria count and FN incidence was retrospectively assessed., Results: The FN incidence rate was 47.4% throughout all treatment cycles (32.8%, 13.5%, 14.3%, and 14.4% in cycles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The oral bacteria count decreased with each treatment cycle (cycle 1: 9.10 × 10 6 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL, cycle 2: 5.89 × 10 6  CFU/mL, cycle 3: 4.61 × 10 6  CFU/mL, cycle 4: 5.85 × 10 6  CFU/mL, P = 0.004). Among 281 treatment cycles, FN occurred in 63 (22.4%). In the treatment cycle-based analysis, high oral bacteria count was an independent risk factor for FN., Conclusion: FN incidence decreased with each treatment cycle and was associated with changes in oral bacteria counts. The oral bacterial count was one of risk factors for FN development in breast cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.)

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear., Objective: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020., Results: We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit., Conclusions: Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening complication of Docetaxel-based chemotherapy regimens (DBRs). Prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) can reduce the risk of FN. This study investigated the effect of G-CSF on FN in patients receiving DBRs for breast cancer., Methods: Patients treated between 2015 and 2017 were identified from the hospital's pharmacy database and their medical records were examined retrospectively. Data from patients' first four cycles of DBR were collected. FN rate, FN associated length of hospital stay (FN-LOS), and chemotherapy dose modification/delay due to FN were compared between patients who did (G-CSF group) or did not (non-GCSF group) receive prophylactic G-CSF., Results: Of the 276 included patients, 83.3% received a DBR as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, and 50% received docetaxel as combination therapy. Prophylactic G-CSF was administered with the first cycle of a DBR in 69.9% of patients who were significantly less likely to experience FN compared to the non-G-CSF group (6.2% vs. 15.7%; odds ratio: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.16-0.82]; p  = 0.020). Collectively and after the 4 DBR treatment cycles, FN rate (4.8 vs. 8.5; odds ratio: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.30-0.97]; p  = 0.043) and the mean FN-LOS (3.55 vs. 5.28 days; t = -2.22; p  = 0.037) were reduced in the G-CSF group. There was no difference in DBR dose delay/reduction between both groups in cycles 2-4., Conclusion: In patients receiving DBRs for breast cancer, prophylactic G-CSF significantly reduced both the rate of FN and duration of hospitalization for FN.

Background/aim: Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) combination therapy is widely used as adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer and is associated with a high incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is recommended in the primary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN). This study aimed to evaluate the FN-suppressing effect of G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving TC., Patients and Methods: We performed 272 treatment cycles after FN onset in 106 patients with breast cancer receiving TC. We retrospectively evaluated the effect of G-CSF as secondary prophylaxis. The frequency of FN was calculated based on the treatment cycles to adjust for differences in the number of cycles per case and FN occurrence., Results: FN occurred in 58 cycles (21.3%). The incidence of FN with and without secondary prophylactic G-CSF was 10.1% and 25.9%, respectively (p=0.003). Multivariate analysis showed secondary prophylactic G-CSF administration to be an independent predictor of FN incidence [odds ratio (OR)=0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.14-0.74, p=0.007]., Conclusion: Secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF is recommended for patients with breast cancer undergoing TC chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of FN., (Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, especially in patients with node-negative or low-risk node-positive breast cancer. Guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent febrile neutropenia. In this study, we aimed to explore the use of G-CSF as a primary prophylactic and determine the factors influencing its use. This retrospective study used nationwide claims data from the National Inpatient Sample compiled by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in South Korea from 2018. The claims data included 10% of inpatients admitted at least once in 2018 and 1% of outpatients who were not admitted. Female patients with breast cancer who received an adjuvant TC regimen after surgery were selected. Primary prophylactic G-CSF was defined as G-CSF prescribed within two days of the first cycle of TC. The factors influencing its utilisation were investigated using the chi-square test and a multiple logistic regression model. A total of 229 patients were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients who received primary prophylactic G-CSF treatment after the first cycle of TC was 55.5%. The factors positively influencing G-CSF utilization were patients' age ≥65 years, location (i.e. metropolitan areas), and the type of healthcare facility (i.e. non-tertiary hospitals). The use of prophylactic G-CSF in patients with breast cancer who received the adjuvant TC regimen was insufficient. The use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis should be emphasised to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia among patients receiving a myelosuppressive TC regimen.

Purpose: Data indicate that the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in routine practice is not consistent with guideline recommendations. The initiative "supportive care for febrile neutropenia prevention and appropriateness of G-CFS use" was undertaken to address the issue of inappropriate prescription of G-CSFs and to improve guideline adherence in the treatment of FN., Methods: In a two-round Delphi procedure, 36 medical oncologists reviewed clinically relevant recommendations on risk assessment, the appropriate use of G-CSFs, and the prevention of FN based on available literature and individual clinical expertise., Results: The consensus was reached on 16 out of 38 recommendations, which are backed by evidence from randomised clinical trials and routine clinical practice. The medical oncologists agreed that the severity of neutropenia depends on patients' characteristics and chemotherapy intensity, and therefore, the risk of severe neutropenia or FN should be assessed at each chemotherapy cycle so as to initiate prophylaxis with G-CSFs if required. The use of biosimilar G-CSFs, with similar efficacy and safety profiles to the originator biologic, has improved the availability and sustainability of cancer care. The timing of supportive therapy is crucial; for example, long-acting G-CSF should be administered 24-72 h after chemotherapy administration. Each biological agent has a recommended administration dose and duration, and it is important to follow these recommendations to avoid complications associated with under-prophylaxis., Conclusion: It is hoped that these statements will help to increase adherence to guideline recommendations for appropriate G-CSF use and improve patient care., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy for people with cancer can cause severe and prolonged cytopenia, especially neutropenia, a critical condition that is potentially life-threatening. When manifested by fever and neutropenia, it is called febrile neutropenia (FN). Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is one of the serious aetiologies of chemotherapy-induced FN. In pre-emptive therapy, physicians only initiate antifungal therapy when an invasive fungal infection is detected by a diagnostic test. Compared to empirical antifungal therapy, pre-emptive therapy may reduce the use of antifungal agents and associated adverse effects, but may increase mortality. The benefits and harms associated with the two treatment strategies have yet to be determined.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative efficacy, safety, and impact on antifungal agent use of pre-emptive versus empirical antifungal therapy in people with cancer who have febrile neutropenia., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov to October 2021., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared pre-emptive antifungal therapy with empirical antifungal therapy for people with cancer., Data Collection and Analysis: We identified 2257 records from the databases and handsearching. After removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and reviewing full-text reports, we included seven studies in the review. We evaluated the effects on all-cause mortality, mortality ascribed to fungal infection, proportion of antifungal agent use (other than prophylactic use), duration of antifungal use (days), invasive fungal infection detection, and adverse effects for the comparison of pre-emptive versus empirical antifungal therapy. We presented the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome according to the GRADE approach., Main Results: This review includes 1480 participants from seven randomised controlled trials. Included studies only enroled participants at high risk of FN (e.g. people with haematological malignancy); none of them included participants at low risk (e.g. people with solid tumours).  Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little to no difference between pre-emptive and empirical antifungal treatment for all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.30; absolute effect, reduced by 3/1000); and for mortality ascribed to fungal infection (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.89; absolute effect, reduced by 2/1000). Pre-emptive therapy may decrease the proportion of antifungal agent used more than empirical therapy (other than prophylactic use; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.05; absolute effect, reduced by 125/1000; very low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive therapy may reduce the duration of antifungal use more than empirical treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.52 days, 95% CI -6.99 to -0.06, very low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive therapy may increase invasive fungal infection detection compared to empirical treatment (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.05; absolute effect, increased by 43/1000; very low-certainty evidence). Although we were unable to pool adverse events in a meta-analysis, there seemed to be no apparent difference in the frequency or severity of adverse events between groups. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the seven RCTs could blind participants and personnel related to performance bias. We identified considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity, which reduced the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. However, the two mortality outcomes had less statistical heterogeneity than other outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: For people with cancer who are at high-risk of febrile neutropenia, pre-emptive antifungal therapy may reduce the duration and rate of use of antifungal agents compared to empirical therapy, without increasing over-all and IFD-related mortality; but the evidence regarding invasive fungal infection detection and adverse events was inconsistent and uncertain., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines., Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021., Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic., Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Purpose: We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis., Methods: In this prospective observational study, adult patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma at risk for FN were stratified into subgroups based on FN prophylaxis used in the first chemotherapy cycle: pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other (pegfilgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim prefilled syringe, daily filgrastim, or no granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) for up to 4 planned chemotherapy cycles., Results: This US study enrolled 2575 eligible patients (OBI, 1624; Other, 951). FN incidence was lower in the OBI group (6.4% [95% CI, 5.2-7.6%]) than in the Other group (9.4% [7.5-11.2%]), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (0.47-0.91; p = .006). A decreased risk of dose delays among patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other was observed (RR for ≥ 5 days: 0.64 [0.42-0.96], p = .023; RR for ≥ 7 days: 0.62 [0.40-0.91], p = .016). Adherence, defined as G-CSF support for all chemotherapy cycles, was 94.0% (92.9-95.2%) in the OBI group compared with 58.4% (55.2-61.5%) in the Other group. Compliance with pegfilgrastim, defined as administration the day after chemotherapy, was 88.3% in the OBI group and 48.8% in the prefilled syringe group., Conclusion: Patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI had a lower incidence of FN compared with those receiving alternatives. The OBI was associated with improved adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended G-CSF prophylaxis., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Febrile neutropenia (FN) can cause suboptimal treatment and treatment-related mortality (TRM) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP)., Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and we compared them with the PROCESS cohort (n=485)., Results: Since January 2015, 986 patients with DLBCL were enrolled. Pegfilgrastim was administered at least once in 930 patients (94.3%), covering 90.3% of all cycles. FN developed in 137 patients (13.9%) in this cohort (23.7% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001), and 4.2% of all cycles (10.2% in the PROCESS cohort, p<0.001). Dose delay was less common (≥3 days: 18.1% vs. 23.7%, p=0.015; ≥5 days: 12.0% vs. 18.3%, p=0.023) in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The incidence of TRM (3.2% vs. 5.6%, p=0.047) and infection-related death (1.8% vs. 4.5%, p=0.004) was lower in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort. The 4-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of the two cohorts were not different (OS: 73.0% vs. 71.9%, p=0.545; PFS: 69.5% vs. 68.8%, p=0.616). However, in patients aged ≥75 years, the 4-year OS and PFS rates were higher in this cohort than in the PROCESS cohort (OS: 49.6% vs. 33.7%, p=0.032; PFS: 44.2% vs. 30.3% p=0.047)., Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of FN and infection-related death in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP, and it also improves OS in patients aged ≥75 years.

Purpose: Phase IV clinical trials are required to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of once-per-cycle administration of PegaGen ® (pegfilgrastim, CinnaGen, Iran) in cancer patients., Methods: In this open-label, multicenter, prospective, real-world, post-marketing surveillance study, patients with any type of cancer receiving chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) were included if they were prescribed pegfilgrastim for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and the secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in the prevention of FN in cancer patients., Results: A total of 654 patients (51.73 ± 15.12 years of age) were enrolled and 3615 cycles of pegfilgrastim injections were recorded. The most common malignancies among the study patients were breast cancer (n = 192, 29.36%), lymphoma (n = 131, 20.03%), and gastric cancer (n = 65, 9.94%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of pegfilgrastim cycles per patient was 6 (4, 7). A single 6 mg dose was injected in 99.17% of the cycles. A total number of 816 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 246 patients (37.62%). Bone pain was recorded in 141 patients (21.56%) and in 440 cycles (12.17%). Among all patients, 45 patients (6.88%) experienced FN 51 times, and FN frequency was 1.4% among cycles. Moreover, 14 (2.14%) patients were hospitalized following FN. Antibiotics were administered to 24 patients (3.67%) for FN treatment., Conclusion: The results from this post-marketing surveillance study support the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen ® used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with various types of cancer and treatment regimens., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04460079., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Currently, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment to prevent neutropenia and its complications varies widely in clinical practice with no standardization for intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess neutropenic outcomes in patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens who receive primary versus secondary prophylactic G-CSFs., Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients who received intermediate risk chemotherapy regimens and at least one dose of G-CSF therapy. 121 patients were included and were divided into primary (n = 76) or secondary prophylaxis (n = 45) groups. The primary outcome for this study was the incidence of neutropenic episodes per course of treatment. The secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who experienced delays in chemotherapy doses, the number of chemotherapy dose reductions, and the number of subsequent treatment delays., Results: The incidence of neutropenic episodes over the course of therapy was 0.42 episodes in the primary group compared to 1.52 episodes in the secondary group (p < 0.05). 10.5% of patients in the primary group versus 54.3% of patients in the secondary group experienced chemotherapy dose delays (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in chemotherapy dose reductions or in the average number of FN risk factors between groups., Conclusion: This retrospective, cohort study determined that patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy regimens should receive primary prophylaxis, regardless of risk factors in order to decrease episodes of neutropenia and chemotherapy dose delays.

No study has evaluated the effect of therapeutic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in preventing recurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and survival outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients. Objective of this study is to optimize and to identify the use of G-CSF and identify the critical factors for preventing the recurrence of FN in women undergoing chemotherapy for the treatment of gynecologic cancer. The medical records of consecutive patients who underwent chemotherapy for the treatment of gynecologic cancer and experienced FN at least once were retrospectively reviewed. Clinico-laboratory variables were compared between those with and without recurrence of FN to identify risk factors for the recurrence and the most optimal usage of G-CSF that can prevent FN. Student t test, χ2 test, and multivariate Cox regression analysis were used. A total of 157 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included. Of 157, 49 (31.2%) experienced recurrence of FN. Age ≥55 years (P = .043), previous lines of chemotherapy ≤1 (P = .002), thrombocytopenia (P = .025), total dose (P = .003), and maximum daily dose (P = .009) of G-CSF were significantly associated with recurrence of FN. Multiple regression analysis showed that age ≥55 years (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.14-5.14; P = .022), previous chemotherapy ≤1 (HR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.40-11.55; P = .010), and maximum daily dose of G-CSF ≤600 μg (HR, 5.18; 95% CI, 1.12-24.02; P = .036) were independent risk factors for recurrent FN. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that a maximum daily dose of G-CSF ≤600 μg was the only independent risk factor for short recurrence-free survival of FN (HR, 4.75; 95% CI, 1.15-19.56; P = .031). Dose-dense administration of G-CSF >600 μg/day could prevent recurrence of FN in women who undergo chemotherapy for the treatment of gynecologic cancer and FN. Old age and FN at early lines of chemotherapy seem to be associated with FN recurrence., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major dose-limiting toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and several patients receiving chemotherapy are at intermediate risk of developing FN. However, the guidelines remain less clear regarding the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for this population and insights about real-world prophylaxis patterns and FN outcomes are needed., Areas Covered: This scoping review summarizes the variability in real-world G-CSF prophylaxis treatment patterns, incidence of FN, and associated outcomes among patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate risk of FN. G-CSF PP use varied across the included studies (N = 23). Overall, there was a trend for reduced FN incidence among patients who received G-CSF PP vs. those who did not. G-CSF PP was also associated with a lower incidence of FN-related dose delays and reductions and fewer hospitalization days. Gaps in the literature of real-world studies exist, particularly around incorporating FN risk factor assessment, patient-reported outcomes, and health economic outcomes., Expert Opinion: Further studies are warranted to determine the impact of G-CSF PP use on clinical, quality of life, and economic outcomes in patients with intermediate FN risk, which could optimize care for this subgroup of patients, resulting in better population-based FN-related outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether using pegfilgrastim biosimilars is cost saving in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare medical costs including pegfilgrastim drug costs and febrile neutropenia (FN) treatment and management costs between pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb, pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and originator users for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using 2019 IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases was conducted in adult patients with cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses. At least 2 diagnoses of the same cancer (at least 7 days apart) were required within 30 days of the chemotherapy initiation date. Pegfilgrastim (excluding on-body injector) costs included drug costs only (excluding administration fees). FN-related costs included all FN-related health care utilizations that were defined as having neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Per-patient per-cycle (PPPC) out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, health plan costs, and total costs were compared between originator (excluding on-body injector) and biosimilars users in the first cycle. A generalized linear model and a 2-part model were used. RESULTS: A total of 1,930 patients were included, of whom 884 (45.8%) used pegfilgrastim originator, 427 (22.1%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, and 619 (32.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Adjusted PPPC OOP pegfilgrastim costs in the first cycle were significantly lower for the biosimilars vs the originator ($182 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $159 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $299 for originator, P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). However, there was no difference in health plan costs ($5,783 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $5,845 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $5,618 for originator) and total costs. In addition, no difference was observed for adjusted PPPC FN treatment and management OOP costs, health plan costs, and total costs in the first cycle. FN treatment OOP costs were $192 for originator, $197 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb ( P = 0.958), and $240 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv ( P = 0.680). FN treatment health plan costs were $2,804 for originator, $2,970 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb ( P = 0.692), and $2,745 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv ( P = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: In a commercially insured population, using pegfilgrastim biosimilars in the first cycle for primary prophylaxis of FN led to cost savings for patients but not payers. No difference in FN-related costs was observed.

Purpose: The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) published a guideline (GL) on febrile neutropenia (FN) in 2017. This study aims to identify promoting factors and disincentives for complying with GL recommendations according to attributes of doctors providing chemotherapy., Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted with SurveyMonkey™ for physician members of the Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and relevant academic organizations. Each question had four options (always do, do in more than half of patients, do in less than half, do not at all) and a free description form. Responses were analyzed according to the respondents' attributes., Result: Seven hundred eighty-eight out of retrieved 801 responses were available for analysis. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the percentage of GL users was higher among women and Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology members. The overall compliance rate was higher among women, JSMO members, and board-certified medical oncologists. Internists emphasized the significance of collecting blood cultures at FN onset, and surgeons stressed the importance of G-CSF prophylaxis. Hematologists were less likely to adhere to recommendations on risk assessment of FN by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer score and administration of gammaglobulin products. However, those are acceptable due to the characteristics of their practice. Eight recommendations had no difference in compliance rates between users and non-users, some of whose statements were ambiguous and discretionary., Conclusion: Women were more likely to use and adhere to GL. The recommendations should be developed considering the characteristics of specialty and subspecialty and avoiding ambiguity and discretionary statements., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells (CAR-T) are an outbreaking treatment option for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) are the most common specific toxicities, while severe neutropenia and infections are often observed as well. From March 2020, early G-CSF prophylaxis at day (D) two post-infusion was systematically proposed. We then compared patients treated before that date who did not receive G-CSF or who received late (after D5) G-CSF as control group. Patients administered with early G-CSF had similar duration of grade 4 neutropenia but significantly decreased incidence of febrile neutropenia (58% versus 81%, p = 0.018). Similar rate of toxicities was observed, including overall and grade 3-4 CRS (p = 0.93 and p = 0.28, respectively), and overall and grade 3-4 ICANS (p = 0.62 and p = 0.88, respectively). We observed no difference in the quality of CAR T-cells expansion (p = 0.79, %Cmax), nor in response rate (best ORR, 57.6% vs 61.8%, p = 0.93), nor survival even in a group of patients adjusted by a propensity score. In conclusion, early G-CSF administration was safe and effective in reducing febrile neutropenia without impact on toxicities nor on anti-lymphoma activity of CAR-T., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To compare the efficacies and costs between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim prophylaxis for FN post-ASCT for lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients., Methods: 43 patients who received pegfilgrastim (6 mg) were compared to a retrospective cohort of 129 patients that had received filgrastim post-ASCT. Hematopoietic recovery time, FN incidence and treatment costs were assessed and compared., Results: The mean time to absolute neutrophil count engraftment was 8.72 ± 2.38 days for the prospective pegfilgrastim group and 9.87 ± 3.13 days for the retrospective filgrastim group (P  = 0.027). The incidence of FN was 18.60% and 50.39% in prospective pegfilgrastim and retrospective filgrastim groups, respectively (P  = 0.000). The mean cost of filgrastim was $617.22 ± 37.87, compared with $525.78 for pegfilgrastim ( P  = 0.032)., Discussion: Convenience, effectiveness, and safety of prophylaxis for FN in the prospective pegfilgrastim group were significantly improved compared to the retrospective filgrastim group in ASCT patients., Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was more effective and convenient than filgrastim for FN prophylaxis in patients post-ASCT, especially for MM patients.

Multiple myeloma (MM) survival rates have been substantially increased thanks to novel agents that have improved survival outcomes and shown better tolerability than treatments of earlier years. These new agents include immunomodulating imide drugs (IMiD) thalidomide and lenalidomide, the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (PI), recently followed by new generation IMID pomalidomide, monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab, and next generation PI carfilzomib and ixazomib. However, even in this more promising scenario, febrile neutropenia remains a severe side effect of antineoplastic therapies and can lead to a delay and/or dose reduction in subsequent cycles. Supportive care has thus become key in helping patients to obtain the maximum benefit from novel agents. Filgrastim is a human recombinant subcutaneous preparation of G-CSF, largely adopted in hematological supportive care as "on demand" (or secondary) prophylaxis to recovery from neutropenia and its infectious consequences during anti-myeloma treatment. On the contrary, pegfilgrastim is a pegylated long-acting recombinant form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) that, given its extended half-life, can be particularly useful when adopted as "primary prophylaxis," therefore before the onset of neutropenia, along chemotherapy treatment in multiple myeloma patients. There is no direct comparison between the two G-CSF delivery modalities. In this review, we compare data on the two administrations' modality, highlighting the efficacy of the secondary prophylaxis over multiple myeloma treatment. Advantage of pegfilgrastim could be as follows: the fixed administration rather than multiple injections, reduction in neutropenia and febrile neutropenia rates, and, finally, a cost-effectiveness advantage., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Limited data are available on antimicrobials exposure and microbiology evolution in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients underwent antimicrobials prophylaxis. To assess the effectiveness of antimicrobials prophylaxis, antibiotic susceptibilities of bacteria, and exposure of antimicrobials during intensive chemotherapy for AML patients, 90 consecutive de novo AML patients aged 0-18 years between January 1, 1997 and March 31, 2018 were enrolled. Vancomycin, ciprofloxacin and voriconazole prophylaxis was administered from January 1, 2010. During the preprophylaxis period, January 1997 to December 2009, 62 patients experienced a total of 87 episodes of bloodstream infection (BSI) and 17 episodes of invasive fungal infection (IFI) among 502 courses of chemotherapy. In contrast, 16 episodes of BSI occurred and no IFIs were reported to occur in 28 patients who received 247 courses of chemotherapy in the prophylaxis period. Patients who received antimicrobial prophylaxis had a significant reduction of BSI, IFI, and febrile neutropenia in comparison with patients without prophylaxis. Exposure to amikacin, carbapenem, amphotericin B was reduced in the prophylaxis period. Imipenem susceptibility of Enterobacter cloacae as well as vancomycin susceptibility of Enterococcus species were reduced in the prophylaxis period. At the time of the last follow up, patients with prophylaxis had a better subsequent 5-year overall survival rate than those without prophylaxis. Prophylactic antimicrobials administration in children with AML who undergo chemotherapy can significantly reduce the rates of life-threatening infection, exposure to antimicrobials, and might result in a better outcome., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Bloodstream infection (BSI) is a frequent complication observed in patients with febrile neutropenia (FN). BSI risk factors and incidence vary depending on chemotherapy types and prophylactic antimicrobial agents. We clarified these issues by post-hoc analysis of a prospective clinical trial cohort for severe FN in hematological malignancy., Methods: We performed an intention-to-treat analysis of 413 high-risk patients and 1272 blood culture sets., Results: Overall, 356 patients (86.2%) developed FN, and 20.8% had BSI complications. Prophylactic antimicrobials did not prevent complications of FN and BSI, but the incidence of BSIs of Gram-negative (GN) bacteria was lower than in the non-prophylaxis group (23.8% vs. 56.7%). Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) scores < 20 were significantly correlated with the incidence of BSI, whereas MASCC scores > 21 were not (41.7% vs. 17.2%). The only significant risk factors were hypotension and dehydration. axillary temperatures were higher in GN-caused BSIs than in Gram-positive-caused BSIs and in patients with negative blood culture results (38.7 °C vs. 38.2 °C vs. 38.0 °C). The higher the fever, the higher the incidence of BSI and GN bacteremia., Conclusions: MASCC score and axillary temperature are strong predictors of BSI. Non-administration of prophylactic antimicrobials and GN-caused BSI are correlated., The Clinical Trial Registration Number: UMIN00010411., (© 2021. Japanese Society of Hematology.)

Objective : The efficacy of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy in treating esophageal cancer has been reported. However, febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially serious adverse event of DCF therapy with an incidence of 10 to 40%. Pegfilgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), has been shown to have a primary prophylactic role in FN. However, it has been suggested that excessive use of expensive G-CSF should be avoided. Therefore, we performed a cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Design : Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree modelling. Methods : We used a decision tree analysis model based on the report of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Based on a previous study, the FN incidence rate was set at 40.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.9-68.1) for the pegfilgrastim group and 43.5% (95%CI: 21.6-65.4) for the no pegfilgrastim group. The FN treatment cost was US$726.63, and the duration of FN was 3.65±1.20 days. The utility value of patients who received DCF therapy was 0.643, and the change in utility value at FN onset was -0.15. Expected cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated, and cost-utility analysis was performed. Results : The ICER of pegfilgrastim was 184,976.75 USD/QALY. As a result of sensitivity analysis, the utility of FN had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness analysis, followed by the drug cost of pegfilgrastim. Conclusion : Primary prophylaxis of FN with pegfilgrastim might not be cost-effectiveness. In determining whether to administer pegfilgrastim it is necessary to consider patient factors, not just the incidence of FN.