Anticancer research · 2022
Usefulness of Prophylactic Administration of Pegfilgrastim for Esophageal Cancer Chemotherapy: A Single-center Retrospective Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Okamoto Koichi, Ninomiya Itasu, Saito Hiroto, Shimada Mari, Yamaguchi Takahisa, Terai Shiro, Moriyama Hideki, Kinoshita Jun, Nakamura Keishi, Inaki Noriyuki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: To evaluate the impact of prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim in esophageal cancer (EC) patients treated with chemotherapy consisted of docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among 102 patients who received neoadjuvant or induction DCF for primary advanced EC, 65 received prophylactic pegfilgrastim and 37 did not. The association of pegfilgrastim with adverse events and clinicopathological outcomes was retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: In the pegfilgrastim group, the incidence of grade >3 neutropenia was lower (30.8% vs. 62.2%) and more patients avoided dose reduction or discontinuation of chemotherapy (32.3% vs. 70.3%). The radiological (PR≤) and histopathological (grade 1b≤) response rates were significantly higher (69.2% vs. 43.2% and 59.2% vs. 35.7%). Three-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were significantly higher (65.0% vs. 48.6%, p=0.033; 56.1% vs. 35.1%, p=0.007, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Prophylactic pegfilgrastim in DCF may relieve adverse events and improve the oncologic outcome of EC patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among 102 patients who received neoadjuvant or induction DCF for primary advanced EC, 65 received prophylactic pegfilgrastim and 37 did not. The association of pegfilgrastim with adverse events and clinicopathological outcomes was retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: In the pegfilgrastim group, the incidence of grade >3 neutropenia was lower (30.8% vs. 62.2%) and more patients avoided dose reduction or discontinuation of chemotherapy (32.3% vs. 70.3%). The radiological (PR≤) and histopathological (grade 1b≤) response rates were significantly higher (69.2% vs. 43.2% and 59.2% vs. 35.7%). Three-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were significantly higher (65.0% vs. 48.6%, p=0.033; 56.1% vs. 35.1%, p=0.007, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Prophylactic pegfilgrastim in DCF may relieve adverse events and improve the oncologic outcome of EC patients.