4.7 Article

A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 29-35

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdg019

关键词

breast cancer; clinical trial; hemopoietic growth factor; multicenter study; neutropenia

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We evaluated the efficacy of a single fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim (a pegylated version of filgrastim) per cycle of chemotherapy, compared with daily administration of filgrastim, in the provision of neutrophil support. Patients and methods: Patients (n = 157) were randomized to receive either a single 6 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) injection of pegfilgrastim or daily 5 mg/kg s.c. injections of filgrastim, after doxorubicin and docetaxel chemotherapy (60 mg/m(2) and 75 mg/m(2), respectively). Duration of grade 4 neutropenia, depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to neutrophil recovery and safety information were recorded. Results: A single 6 mg injection of pegfilgrastim was as effective as daily injections of filgrastim for all efficacy measures for all cycles. The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 1.8 and 1.6 days for the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups, respectively. Results for all efficacy end points in cycles 2-4 were consistent with the results from cycle 1. A trend towards a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia was noted across all cycles with pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim (13% versus 20%, respectively). A single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim was as safe and well tolerated as standard daily filgrastim. Conclusions: A single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim, administered once per cycle of chemotherapy was comparable to multiple daily injections of filgrastim in safely providing neutrophil support during myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim may have utility in other clinical settings of neutropenia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据