Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
Primary G-CSF prophylaxis in sacituzumab govitecan-treated mTNBC: real-world evidence from a multinational CEBCC-102 cohort.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Mirosława Püsküllüoğlu, Anna Polakiewicz-Gilowska, Aleksandra Konieczna, Małgorzata Pieniążek, Justyna Żubrowska, Miloš Holánek, Renata Soumarová, Hana Študentová, Miroslava Malejčíková, Agnieszka Młodzińska, Karolina Winsko-Szczęsnowicz, Maja Lisik-Habib, Anika Pękala, Daniel Krejčí, Jan Šustr, Iveta Kolářová, Iwona Danielewicz, Magdalena Szymanik-Resko, Tomasz Ciszewski, Lenka Rušinová, Bogumiła Czartoryska-Arłukowicz, Aleksandra Łacko, Renata Pacholczak-Madej, Michał Jarząb, Zuzana Bielčiková, Marcin Kubeczko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a key treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Neutropenia is a common toxicity, and the optimal use of G-CSF (primary prophylaxis versus reactive administration) remains uncertain. We evaluated the association of primary G-CSF prophylaxis with clinical outcomes and treatment-related toxicities.
METHODS: We conducted a multinational retrospective real-world cohort study of 303 patients with mTNBC treated with SG in the second or a later line. Efficacy endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events were assessed according to CTCAE criteria.
RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 100 were included in the primary prophylaxis group and 203 in the no primary prophylaxis group. Median PFS was 4.2 months in the primary prophylaxis group versus 5.1 months in the no primary prophylaxis group (p = 0.66), with 6-month PFS rates of 38.5% vs. 42.1%, respectively. Median OS was 10.9 vs. 11.6 months (p = 0.95), with 12-month OS rates of 44.9% vs. 47.1%. The frequencies of the recorded individual AEs were similar between groups, apart from grade 3-4 neutropenia, which was less frequent in the primary prophylaxis group (33.0% vs. 50.7%, p = 0.005). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4.0% vs. 4.4% of patients (p = 1.00). Other recorded AEs (anemia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, alopecia) were comparable. Dose reductions due to toxicity were similar (36.0% vs. 38.4%, p = 0.71). In the no primary prophylaxis group, 74.4% subsequently received secondary G-CSF.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective real-world cohort, primary G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with a lower frequency of grade 3-4 neutropenia. No statistically significant differences in PFS, OS, or febrile neutropenia were observed between groups. These findings support a risk-adapted rather than universal approach to primary G-CSF prophylaxis.
METHODS: We conducted a multinational retrospective real-world cohort study of 303 patients with mTNBC treated with SG in the second or a later line. Efficacy endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events were assessed according to CTCAE criteria.
RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 100 were included in the primary prophylaxis group and 203 in the no primary prophylaxis group. Median PFS was 4.2 months in the primary prophylaxis group versus 5.1 months in the no primary prophylaxis group (p = 0.66), with 6-month PFS rates of 38.5% vs. 42.1%, respectively. Median OS was 10.9 vs. 11.6 months (p = 0.95), with 12-month OS rates of 44.9% vs. 47.1%. The frequencies of the recorded individual AEs were similar between groups, apart from grade 3-4 neutropenia, which was less frequent in the primary prophylaxis group (33.0% vs. 50.7%, p = 0.005). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4.0% vs. 4.4% of patients (p = 1.00). Other recorded AEs (anemia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, alopecia) were comparable. Dose reductions due to toxicity were similar (36.0% vs. 38.4%, p = 0.71). In the no primary prophylaxis group, 74.4% subsequently received secondary G-CSF.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective real-world cohort, primary G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with a lower frequency of grade 3-4 neutropenia. No statistically significant differences in PFS, OS, or febrile neutropenia were observed between groups. These findings support a risk-adapted rather than universal approach to primary G-CSF prophylaxis.