4.7 Article

Pegfilgrastim ± ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer.: Results from the GEPARTRIO study

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 292-298

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdm438

Keywords

breast cancer; ciprofloxacin; docetaxel; febrile neutropenia; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; primary prophylaxis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) is associated with high incidences of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN). This analysis compared the efficacies of four regimens for primary prophylaxis of FN and related toxic effects in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant TAC. Patients and methods: Patients with stage T2-T4 primary breast cancer were scheduled to receive 6-8 cycles of TAC. Primary prophylaxis was: ciprofloxacin 500 mg orally twice daily on days 5-14 (n = 253 patients; 1478 cycles), daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (filgrastim 5 mu g/kg/day or lenograstim 150 mu g/m(2)/day) on days 5-10 (n = 377; 2400 cycles), pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 2 (n = 305; 1930 cycles), or pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin (n = 321; 1890 cycles). Results: Pegfilgrastim with/without ciprofloxacin was significantly more effective than daily G-CSF or ciprofloxacin in preventing FN (5% and 7% versus 18% and 22% of patients; all P < 0.001), grade 4 neutropenia, and leukopenia. Pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin completely prevented first cycle FN (P < 0.01 versus pegfilgrastim alone) and fatal neutropenic events. Conclusion: Ciprofloxacin alone, or daily G-CSF from day 5-10 (as in common practice), provided suboptimal protection against FN and related toxic effects in patients receiving TAC. Pegfilgrastim was significantly more effective in this setting, especially if given with ciprofloxacin.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available