Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2014 | Original Article | Ausgabe 12/2014

Supportive Care in Cancer 12/2014

Risk of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving emerging chemotherapy regimens

Zeitschrift:
Supportive Care in Cancer > Ausgabe 12/2014
Autoren:
Derek Weycker, Xiaoyan Li, John Edelsberg, Rich Barron, Alex Kartashov, Hairong Xu, Gary H. Lyman
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s00520-014-2362-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Purpose

Considerable evidence exists concerning the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with well-established, older chemotherapy regimens. Little is known, however, about the risks associated with many regimens that were introduced in the past decade and have become the predominant choice for certain cohorts of patients or are increasingly being used in clinical practice.

Methods

A retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data (2006–2011) were employed. Study subjects included adult patients receiving the following: docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC), 5-FU + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (FEC), FEC followed by docetaxel (FEC → D), or docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab (TCH) for non-metastatic breast cancer; TCH for metastatic breast cancer; 5-FU + leucovorin + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for metastatic pancreatic cancer; and bendamustine (with rituximab [BR], without rituximab [B-Mono]) for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). For each patient, the first qualifying chemotherapy course and each cycle therein were identified, as were the use of supportive care—colony-stimulating factors (CSF) and antimicrobials (AMB)—and unique FN episodes.

Results

The crude risk (incidence proportion) of FN during the chemotherapy course ranged from 8.8 (95 % CI 8.3–9.3) to 10.6 % (9.3–12.1) among the breast cancer regimens, was slightly higher for the NHL regimens (BR, 10.5 % [8.9–12.4]; B-Mono, 14.7 % [11.2–18.9]), and was markedly higher for FOLFIRINOX (24.7 % [17.9–33.1]). Most patients developing FN required inpatient care (range, 73–90 %). Use of CSF primary prophylaxis ranged from 17 (B-Mono) to 75 % (FEC → D); use of AMB primary prophylaxis ranged from 6 (FOLFIRINOX) to 13 % (B-Mono).

Conclusion

The risk of FN among patients receiving selected emerging chemotherapy regimens is considerable, and most cases require inpatient care. Use of CSF and AMB prophylaxis, however, varies substantially across regimens.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
ESM 1 (DOCX 131 kb)
520_2014_2362_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2014

Supportive Care in Cancer 12/2014 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Onkologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise