Prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in patients with lung neuroendocrine carcinoma receiving platinum agents plus etoposide

Cancer Treatment and Research Communications

Yusuke Inoue¹  Hideki Yasui²  Kazuki Furuhashi³  Naoki Inui⁴  Tomoyuki Fujisawa⁴  Hironao Hozumi⁴  Yutaro Nakamura⁴  Masato Karayama⁴  Takafumi Suda⁴  Hirofumi Watanabe⁴  Noriyuki Enomoto⁴  Yuzo Suzuki⁴ 

[1]Corresponding author at: Hamamatsu University School of Medicine 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan.

[2]Department of Chemotherapy, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan

[3]Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan

[4]Second Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan

关键词: Small cell lung cancer;    Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma;    Hematologic toxicity;    Neutropenia;    Febrile neutropenia;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Background: The clinical utility of prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients receiving platinum agents plus etoposide for neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is unknown. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with NEC who received platinum agents plus etoposide were retrospectively evaluated. The occurrence of severe neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and efficacy of chemotherapy were compared between patients who did (G-CSF group) and did not receive prophylactic G-CSF (non-G-CSF group). Results: Among 58 patients, 51 (87.9%) and 7 (12.1%) had small-cell lung cancer and large-cell NEC, respectively, and 24 (41.4%) and 34 (58.6%) received cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively. The G-CSF and non-G-CSF groups included 32 and 26 patients, respectively. The non-G-CSF group displayed significantly higher rates of grade 3–4 neutropenia {88.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 69.8% – 97.6%] vs. 56.2% [95% CI = 37.7% – 73.6%], P = 0.009} and FN [50.9% (95% CI = 30% – 70%) vs. 18.8% (95% CI = 7.2% – 36.4%), P = 0.023] than the G-CSF group. In multivariate analysis, non-G-CSF was an independent risk factor for grade 3–4 neutropenia and FN. The rate of treatment delay was significantly higher in the non-G-CSF group (69.2% vs. 31.2%, P = 0.001). The relative dose intensity was significantly higher in the G-CSF group (86.7% vs. 74.1%, P < 0.001). The overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: In patients with NEC receiving platinum agents plus etoposide, prophylactic G-CSF significantly reduced the risks of severe neutropenia and FN.

【 授权许可】

Unknown