BACKGROUND: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration.
METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data.
RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.

Evidence-based US guidelines provide recommendations for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as supportive therapy in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is recommended for FN prophylaxis in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving a high-risk chemotherapy regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen if one or more risk factors are present. The guidelines highlight the patient characteristics and chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies that may influence a patient\'s overall risk of FN and may benefit from pegfilgrastim support. This review aimed to evaluate how pegfilgrastim use in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in routine clinical practice aligns with evidence-based US guidelines. Examination of the literature revealed widespread deviation in relation to under- and over-prescribing, and timing of administration in US clinical practice. Pegfilgrastim is often over-prescribed in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy and those at low risk of FN. Potential under-prescribing of pegfilgrastim was also observed. In this literature search, data that appear to support same-day administration of pegfilgrastim were from uncontrolled studies that were limited in size. Analyses of healthcare claims data clearly favored next-day use, with statistically significant increases in FN incidence among patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim versus those treated 1-4 days post-chemotherapy. Earlier-than-recommended administration typically occurs at the physician\'s discretion where next-day administration might present barriers to the patient receiving supportive therapy.There is a need to ensure appropriate prescribing to optimize patient outcomes, as deviation from the guideline recommendations was associated with increased incidence of FN and hospitalization.

UNASSIGNED: Approximately 60,000 patients are hospitalised annually due to chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in the United States alone. Febrile neutropenia is primarily managed by antibiotics and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). However, there are inconsistent recommendations regarding dose, frequency, and duration for G-CSF therapy. We conducted this study to assess the use of G-CSFs in a community-based teaching hospital in compliance with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adult patients diagnosed with non-myeloid malignancies who received filgrastim in a community-based teaching hospital from November 2014 to April 2015.
UNASSIGNED: Of 90 patients, 77% received filgrastim for FN treatment, 19% for primary prophylaxis, and 4% for secondary prophylaxis. The dose of filgrastim was appropriate in 93% of patients, while 7% received a sub-optimal dose without the worsening of their clinical outcomes. We could not assess the duration of therapy for 38 patients who either died or were discharged before achieving the desired absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Of the 69 patients treated for FN, only 33% received filgrastim until they achieved the ANC goal (1,500-8,000/μL), while 36% continued to receive filgrastim treatment beyond the desired ANC goal.
UNASSIGNED: In our study, filgrastim was correctly prescribed; however, the ANC goal was not achieved in 47% of the patients. If the recommended ANC range had been targeted, a minimum of 28 doses could have been potentially avoided. This approach would have saved approximately $56,000. Therefore, future protocols should focus on pharmacist-led interventions to optimise G-CSF usage.

Not available.

OBJECTIVE: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are indicated for prophylaxis or management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN). Guidelines recommend G-CSF 24-72 h following chemotherapy; however, some evidence suggests that G-CSF initiated < 24 h may benefit some patients.
METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF was a prospective, observational, multicenter, pan-European study of 1447 chemotherapy-treated patients receiving daily biosimilar (standard) filgrastim (Zarzio®/Zarxio®, filgrastim-sndz, Hexal AG, Sandoz Inc.). In this analysis, cycles were classified as same-day, per-guidelines, or late if G-CSF support was initiated < 24 h, 24-72 h, and > 72 h after chemotherapy. Outcomes included occurrence of CIN of any grade (CIN1/4), grade 3 or 4 (CIN3/4), grade 4 (CIN4), or FN: CIN/FN-related hospitalization or CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance.
RESULTS: A total of 5930 chemotherapy cycles from 1423 evaluable patients from MONITOR-GCSF had data for day of G-CSF initiation: 795 cycles (13.4%) classified as same-day, 3320 (56.0%) as per-guidelines, and 1815 (30.6%) as late. Groups did not differ as to CIN1/4 and FN episodes, or CIN/FN-related hospitalizations or chemotherapy disturbances. Patients in the same-day and per-guidelines groups had statistically similar odds of not experiencing any outcomes of interest in any given cycle. Patients in the late group had worse odds of experiencing CIN1/4, CIN3/4, and CIN4 episodes in any given cycle. Proportions of patients reporting clinical events of interest were generally similar.
CONCLUSIONS: This real-world evidence indicates that CIN/FN prophylaxis initiated with biosimilar filgrastim within 24-72 h post-chemotherapy is effective and safe. Filgrastim administration on the day of chemotherapy may be appropriate in some patients.

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN.
Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach.
Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days\' filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days\' filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days\' filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim.
In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations.
MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary).
Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches).
The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs).
METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee.
RESULTS: Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults.
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies.
METHODS: We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines.
RESULTS: We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) is a well-established treatment for malignancies such as multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphomas. Various changes in the field over the past decade, including the frequent use of tandem aHSCT in MM, the advent of novel therapies for the treatment of MM and lymphoma, and the addition of new stem cell mobilization techniques, have led to the need to reassess current stem cell mobilization strategies. Mobilization failures with traditional strategies are common and result in delays in treatment and increased cost and resource utilization. Recently, plerixafor-containing strategies have been shown to significantly reduce mobilization failure rates, but the ideal method to maximize stem cell yields and minimize costs associated with collection has not yet been determined. A panel of experts convened to discuss the currently available data on autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and transplantation and to devise guidelines to optimize mobilization strategies. Herein is a summary of their discussion and consensus.