Optimal timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF after chemotherapy administration for patients with cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022
© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology..
INTRODUCTION: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration.
METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data.
RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.
Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
---|
Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
---|---|
Erschienen: |
2024 |
Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:29 |
---|---|
Enthalten in: |
International journal of clinical oncology - 29(2024), 5 vom: 09. Apr., Seite 551-558 |
Sprache: |
Englisch |
---|
Beteiligte Personen: |
Ozaki, Yukinori [VerfasserIn] |
---|
Links: |
---|
Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.04.2024 Date Revised 25.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
---|
doi: |
10.1007/s10147-024-02499-y |
---|
funding: |
|
---|---|
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370161912 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | NLM370161912 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20240425233305.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 240327s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10147-024-02499-y |2 doi | |
028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1386.xml |
035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370161912 | ||
035 | |a (NLM)38526621 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Ozaki, Yukinori |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Optimal timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF after chemotherapy administration for patients with cancer |b a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 |
264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a Date Completed 25.04.2024 | ||
500 | |a Date Revised 25.04.2024 | ||
500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
520 | |a © 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. | ||
520 | |a INTRODUCTION: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration | ||
520 | |a METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data | ||
520 | |a RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive | ||
520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations | ||
650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
650 | 4 | |a Febrile neutropenia | |
650 | 4 | |a Meta-analysis | |
650 | 4 | |a Pegfilgrastim | |
650 | 4 | |a Pegylated G-CSF | |
650 | 7 | |a Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a 143011-72-7 |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a Polyethylene Glycols |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a 3WJQ0SDW1A |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a I4QL0KKG3K |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a pegfilgrastim |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a 3A58010674 |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a Filgrastim |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a PVI5M0M1GW |2 NLM | |
650 | 7 | |a Recombinant Proteins |2 NLM | |
700 | 1 | |a Yokoe, Takamichi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Yoshinami, Tetsuhiro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Nozawa, Kazuki |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Nishio, Hiroshi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Tsuchihashi, Kenji |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ichihara, Eiki |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Miura, Yuji |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Endo, Makoto |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Yano, Shingo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Maruyama, Dai |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Susumu, Nobuyuki |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Takekuma, Munetaka |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Motohashi, Takashi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ito, Mamoru |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Baba, Eishi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ochi, Nobuaki |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Kubo, Toshio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Uchino, Keita |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Kimura, Takahiro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Kamiyama, Yutaro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Nakao, Shinji |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Tamura, Shinobu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Nishimoto, Hitomi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Kato, Yasuhisa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Sato, Atsushi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Takano, Toshimi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal of clinical oncology |d 1997 |g 29(2024), 5 vom: 09. Apr., Seite 551-558 |w (DE-627)NLM095566163 |x 1437-7772 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:29 |g year:2024 |g number:5 |g day:09 |g month:04 |g pages:551-558 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10147-024-02499-y |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 29 |j 2024 |e 5 |b 09 |c 04 |h 551-558 |