Effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in preventing febrile neutropenia during R-FC chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A multicenter prospective phase II study

A chemotherapy of rituximab, fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) has been accepted as a promising frontline chemotherapy in selected patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Although R-FC regimen is a relatively dose-dense regimen and neutropenia incidence is more than 50%, primary prop...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in oncology 2023-03, Vol.13, p.998014
Hauptverfasser: Jeon, Youngwoo, Yang, Duk-Hwan, Oh, Suk-Joong, Park, Jin-Hee, Kim, Jung-Ah, Kim, Sung-Young, Choi, Chul-Won, Lee, Won-Sik, Kim, In-Ho, Mun, Yeung-Chul, Min, Gi June, Eom, Ki-Seong, Cho, Seok-Goo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:A chemotherapy of rituximab, fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) has been accepted as a promising frontline chemotherapy in selected patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Although R-FC regimen is a relatively dose-dense regimen and neutropenia incidence is more than 50%, primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim was not fully recommended in the clinical field. Therefore, the study evaluated the prophylactic effectiveness of pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with R-FC of patients with CLL. A single-arm, multicenter, prospective phase II study was designed to assess the efficacy of prophylactic pegfilgrastim. Thirty-four CLL patients were enrolled and analyzed for neutropenia and other related factors, and comparative analysis was performed with historical cohort. Compared with our historical cohort, incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was remarkably reduced during any cycle of chemotherapy (14.7% vs. 48.2% of study cohort vs. historical cohort during C1, 5.9% vs. 65.8% during C2, 12.9% vs. 80.6% during C3, 10% vs. 84.6% during C4, 3.4% vs. 83.6% during C5, and 10.7% vs. 85.7% during C6, p
ISSN:2234-943X
2234-943X
DOI:10.3389/fonc.2023.998014