AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightWhen side ef-fects were evaluated, 31 patients (20.9%) had pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain and two patients (1.3%) had redness in the injection site.CONCLUSIONThe low incidence of FN and chemotherapy delay, even in secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, suggests that pegfilgrastim is an effective agent in neutropenia prophylaxis.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
OBJECTIVEPegfilgrastim is a new generation on granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) with different pharmacokinetic properties. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the results of the use of pegfilgrastim as secondary prophylaxis.METHODSBetween November 2016 and June 2019, a retrospective analysis of the patients who used pegfilgrastim with solid malignancies treated in the University of Health Sciences, Dr. A. Y. Ankara Oncology Hospi-tal Department of Medical Oncology was performed.RESULTSA total of 148 patients were evaluated, and 33 (22.2%) of them were in the geriatric population (age>65). The majority of the patients (n=97, 65.5%) were diagnosed with breast carcinoma, and 93.2% (n=138) of all patients were treated with the intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimen. Pegfilgrastim was used as secondary prophylaxis for all of the patients. Despite pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, febrile neutropenia (FN) developed in four (2.7%) patients. Chemotherapy delay due to afebrile neutropenia occurred in eight patients (5.4%), and neutrophil counts returned to normal in mean 4.0 (3-5) days. When side ef-fects were evaluated, 31 patients (20.9%) had pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain and two patients (1.3%) had redness in the injection site.CONCLUSIONThe low incidence of FN and chemotherapy delay, even in secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, suggests that pegfilgrastim is an effective agent in neutropenia prophylaxis.