Table 1.
Studies of prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim during chemotherapy.
| Authors | Cancer type | Regimen | Primary endpoint | Outcome(pegfilgrastim vs. filgrastim) | FN incidence rate (%)(pegfilgrastim vs. filgrastim) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kubo et al. (7) | malignant lymphoma | cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, etoposide and dexamethasone ± rituximab | number of days with neutrophil count <0.5×109/l in the first cycle | 4.5 ± 1.2 days vs. 4.7 ± 1.3 days (p<0.001) |
56.6 vs. 55.6 |
| Cerchione et al. (8) | non-Hodgkin lymphoma | bendamustine and rituximab | chemotherapy disruption due to FN | 1.6% vs. 11.5% (p=0.028) | 27.8 vs. 8.2 (p=0.005) |
| Xie et al. (9) | breast cancer | epirubicin and cyclophosphamide or epirubicin and docetaxel or docetaxel and cyclophosphamide |
incidence and duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia in cycle 1 | 44.39% vs. 48.45% (NS) 0.96 ± 1.29days vs. 1.10 ± 1.44days (NS) |
NS |
| Green et al. (10) | breast cancer | doxorubicin and docetaxel | duration of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 | 1.8 ± 1.4days vs. 1.6 ± 1.1 days (p=0.23) | 13 vs. 20 (NS) |
| Holmes et al. (11) | breast cancer | doxorubicin and docetaxel | duration of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 | 1.7 ± 1.5days vs. 1.8 ± 1.4days (p>0.500) | 9 vs. 18 (p=0.029) |
FN, febrile neutropenia; NS, not significant.