Introduction
With subsequent infectious complications, neutropenia represents one of the common treatment-limiting factors in myelotoxic cancer chemotherapy [ 1 , 2 ]. Febrile neutropenia (FN) is the development of fever, often with other signs of infection, in a patient with neutropenia, which refers to an abnormally low number of neutrophils in the blood [ 3 ]. Common chemotherapy regimens lead to FN in 25-40% of treatment-naive patients, resulting in compromised immune function with an increased risk of infections [ 4 ]. FN may lead to subsequent dose reduction or delay in chemotherapy, resulting in poor patient outcomes, reduced quality of life, increased length of hospital stay, and higher diagnostic and treatment costs [ 5 - 8 ]. Not only does FN affect individual patient outcomes it also causes a perturbance of resource management according to the pharmacoeconomics principle [ 9 ]. Age, comorbidity, and severity of the myelotoxic effect of chemotherapy are the main determinants of the mortality rate associated with FN, ranging from 5-13.7% [ 10 ], while the severity of FN depends on the dose intensity of the chemotherapy and the patient’s comorbidities and history of either radiation therapy or cytotoxic treatment.
Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) act as accelerators of neutrophil production from progenitor cells [ 11 - 13 ]. These adjunctive agents are an integral part of the preventive treatment plans for chemotherapy-induced FN and successfully reduce the severity and duration of FN [ 14 - 16 ]. Filgrastim has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in oncology to prevent therapy-induced anemia and neutropenia post-chemotherapy [ 4 ]. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), in their prevalent guidelines, recommends primary prophylaxis, with CSFs being confined to patients with ≥20% risk of FN [ 4 ]. Due to the acceptance of the guidelines profile of filgrastim, 20 million patients have benefited worldwide [ 17 ].
Despite the guidelines and recommendations for administering these agents [ 18 - 20 ], the clinical application remains inconsistent [ 13 , 21 ]. Bennett et al. reported on the adherence inconsistency of G-CSF administration, characterized by overutilization in low-risk patients and underutilization in high-risk patients, with 96% of all G-CSF administrations not adhering to the current guidelines [ 2 ]. Further studies are warranted to optimally define the patient population that is most likely to benefit from G-CSF therapy [ 22 ]. Due to the small sample size with a lack of statistical power, clinical trials have not yet established a significant impact on overall or disease-free survival [ 11 , 13 ]. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical prescribing patterns of G-CSF; identify overuse, underuse, and misuse rates; and identify patient and physician factors associated with such utility.
Materials and methods
After acquiring appropriate Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective study was conducted at King Khalid University Hospital’s Oncology Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia following the ethical principles based on the Declaration of Helsinki (2013), consistent with the Good Clinical Practice ICH Tripartite guideline [ 23 ]. Data were collected for all neutropenic adults aged >18 years with a proven diagnosis of hematological and solid malignancies who were treated with chemotherapy and received G-CSF as primary or secondary prophylaxis. The data collected included risk factors for starting G-CSF as primary or secondary prophylaxis, the timing of G-CSF usage with chemotherapy lagging period, number of doses needed to attain absolute neutrophil count (ANC) levels of >500 cell/µL for three consecutive days, neutrophilic type, and count follow-up, as well as hospitalization and fever duration.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were computed as baseline means, standard deviations (SDs), minimum and maximum values for continuous variables, and percentages for categorical variables. The chi-square and Fisher exact test were used for comparing FN to gender, specialty, comorbidity, and age. Student’s t-test was used to compare neutrophil count pre-and post-chemotherapy and with post-filgrastim. We used STATA version 13.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA) for analyzing data. A statistical significance threshold of p < 0.05 was adopted.
Results
We found complete data on 53 cancer patients who fulfilled our inclusion criteria with a mean age of 41.9 ± 17.1 years (range = 16-75) who were on myelosuppressive regimens. Treatment objectives were curative in 49 (92.4%) and palliative in four (7.5%) patients. The specialty was hematology in 34 (64.1%) and oncology in 19 (35.8%) patients.
FN was present in 14 (26.4%) and absent in 39 (73.6%) patients. Bacterial culture was positive in nine (16.9%) patients. Antibiotic was received by 20 (35.7%) patients, among which antibiotic was stopped because the culture was negative in six (30%) patients, while the course was completed in 14 (70%) patients. Among our cohort, 24 (45%) patients achieved remission, 12 (23%) died, and 17 (32%) patients were not cured.
Pre-chemotherapy, the mean neutrophil count was 4.8 ± 4.8 (range = 0.1-24.2); post-chemotherapy, the mean neutrophil count was 3.1 ± 3.2 (range = 0-18.3); and post-filgrastim, the neutrophil count was 9.4 ± 6.8 (range = 0.7-33). The mean neutrophil count post-filgrastim did not significantly differ from pre-chemotherapy count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.067), while it significantly differed from post-chemotherapy neutrophil count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.0247).
Table 1 summarizes the correlation between FN and gender, specialty, comorbidities, and age; however, none of the variables were significantly correlated with FN. Table 2 shows the frequency of cancer subtypes.
Table 1
Correlation between febrile neutropenia with demographics, comorbidities, and other factors with Fisher exact and chi-square p-values. SD: standard deviation; CI: confidence interval
| Variables | Febrile neutropenia | Total | P-value | |
| Yes | No | |||
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 4 (28.6) | 18 (46.2) | 22 (41.5) | 0.25 |
| Male | 10 (71.4) | 21 (53.8) | 31 (58.5) | |
| Specialty | ||||
| Hematology | 10 (76.9) | 23 (59.0) | 34 (64.15) | 0.24 |
| Oncology | 3 (23.1) | 16 (41.0) | 19 (35.84) | |
| Comorbidities | ||||
| None | 8 (57.1) | 27 (69.2) | 35 (66.0) | 0.44 |
| Hypertension and diabetes | 0 (0) | 1 (2.6) | 1 (1.9) | |
| Diabetes | 2 (14.3) | 7 (17.9) | 9 (17.0) | |
| Others | 4 (28.6) | 4 (10.3) | 8 (15.1) | |
| Age | ||||
| 40.7 ± 16.8 (CI: 31-50) | 42.8 ± 17.4 (CI: 37-48) | 0.69 | ||
| Neutrophil count | Pre-chemotherapy | Post-chemotherapy | ||
| Mean (SD) | 7.4 (7.5) | 4.69 (3.9) | 34 | 0.0247 |
Table 2
Frequency of cancer subtypes. ALL: acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML: acute myeloid leukemia; CLL: chronic lymphocytic leukemia; DLBCL: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; FL: follicular lymphoma; MCL: mantle cell lymphoma; MM: multiple myeloma; NHL: non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas; RCC: renal cell carcinoma
| Cancer diagnosis | Frequency | Percentage | Cumulative |
| Urothelial cancer | 1 | 1.85 | 1.85 |
| ALL | 4 | 7.54 | 11.11 |
| AML | 3 | 5.56 | 16.67 |
| Breast cancer | 8 | 14.81 | 31.48 |
| CLL | 1 | 1.85 | 33.33 |
| DLBCL | 6 | 11.11 | 44.44 |
| Ewing sarcoma | 2 | 3.7 | 48.15 |
| Hodgkin’s | 8 | 14.81 | 62.96 |
| MCL | 1 | 1.85 | 64.81 |
| MM | 1 | 1.85 | 66.67 |
| NHL | 4 | 7.41 | 74.07 |
| RCC | 1 | 1.85 | 75.93 |
| Relapsed FL | 1 | 1.85 | 77.78 |
| Skin cancer | 1 | 1.85 | 79.63 |
| Intestinal | 4 | 7.41 | 87.04 |
| Lymphoma | 5 | 9.26 | 96.3 |
| Met seminoma | 1 | 1.85 | 98.15 |
| Uterine sarcoma | 1 | 1.85 | 100 |
Discussion
Cytotoxic chemotherapy-induced FN contributes to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality rates due to compromised immune function and subsequent complications such as fungal infections, Gram-negative sepsis, pneumonia, other lung diseases, cerebrovascular disease, and disorders of the liver and kidney [ 1 , 19 , 24 ]. G-CSF is approved by the FDA for instigating the production of neutrophils and has been found beneficial in reducing mortality and morbidity [ 14 , 20 ]. However, the data regarding the utility of G-CFS is scarce, and there is a need to elaborate on its therapeutic effect, as well as the effect of patient and physician factors on G-CSF utility. This study aimed to explore the impact of associated physician and patient factors such as physicians’ specialty, patients’ age, gender, and comorbidities with FN, along with the effect of G-CSF on pre- and post-chemotherapy on FN. The adherence to the guidelines has been assessed.
This study showed that physicians’ specialty and patients’ age, gender, and comorbidities had no significant correlation with FN. Contrary to our results, Aapro et al. showed that age is a predisposing factor for FN [ 18 ]. Whereas Shaqul et al. did not find any association between age with FN, which is in line with our findings [ 25 ]. These disparities highlight the need for further studies. In our cohort of 54 cancer patients, the mean neutrophil count post-filgrastim did not differ significantly from pre-chemotherapy neutrophil count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.067), while there was a significant difference from post-chemotherapy neutrophil count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.044).
Similarly, Shauq et al. recommended using G-CSF and found that it decreases the incidence and severity of neutropenia in breast cancer patients [ 25 ]. G-CSF administration significantly reduces the incidence of FN post-chemotherapy in cancer patients. A meta-analysis of 148 studies found a significant reduction in infections with G-CSF used as primary prophylaxis but did not significantly decrease infection-related mortality [ 16 ]. In secondary prophylaxis, where it is given prophylactically due to previous FN, G-CSF reduced the time for neutrophil recovery, the incidence of FN, hospitalization, and the administration of antibiotics [ 9 ]. While secondary prophylaxis is beneficial, studies comparing primary to secondary prophylaxis tend to support using the former over the latter [ 12 ]. However, the cost associated with G-CSFs is another limiting factor that contributes significantly to the overall cost of cancer-related healthcare [ 9 , 26 , 27 ]. The cost-effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis relies on individuals’ risk of developing FN in cancer patients [ 1 , 28 - 30 ]. Recent economic analyses have indicated that if FN risk is 17-20%, G-CSFs can be a cost-efficient therapy.
The small number of cases in our cohort limited a more detailed statistical analysis or generalization of the findings. However, it identified the use of G-CSF in our institution from where the cases were extracted.
Conclusions
G-CSF administration is beneficial in reducing morbidity and mortality rates associated with FN. We did not find any association between patients’ associated factors such as age, gender, comorbidities, and incidence of FN. Results of the current study confirmed earlier findings on the therapeutic efficiency of G-CSF in the reduction of FN post-chemotherapy, whereas no significant effect was observed on the incidence of pre-chemotherapy FN.
The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Human Ethics
Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Health Sciences Colleges Research on Human Subjects King Saud University College of Medicine issued approval E-20-5122. I am pleased to inform you that your “G-CSF Utilization and Prescribing Patterns in Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Experience” research project submitted to the IRB was reviewed and approved on 21 July 2020. You are now granted permission to conduct this study given that your study does not disclose participant’s identity and poses no risk to the patients.
Animal Ethics
Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.
References
1. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.21847 . Cancer. 2006;106:2258–2266. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21847.
2. Comparison of pegfilgrastim prescribing practice to national guidelines at a university hospital outpatient oncology clinic. Waters GE, Corrigan P, Gatesman M, Smith TJ. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710170/ J Oncol Pract. 2012;9:203–206. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000662.
3. Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients. Dale DC. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12479591/ Drugs. 2002;62 Suppl 1:1–15. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200262001-00001.
4. Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, Rapoport B, Maschmeyer G, Aapro M, Herrstedt J. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27664247/ Ann Oncol. 2016;27:0–8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw325.
5. Incidence and predictors of low dose-intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: a nationwide study of community practices. Lyman GH, Dale DC, Crawford J. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Incidence-and-predictors-of-low-dose-intensity-in-a-Lyman-Dale/965d9de452c49b7ad77c69c2807b7bb310635878 . J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4524–4531. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.002.
6. Use of G-CSF to sustain dose intensity in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a pilot study. Webster J, Lyman GH. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107327489600300605 . Cancer Control. 1996;3:519–523.
7. Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review. Hirsch BR, Lyman GH. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2015.62.3488 . Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:497–511. doi: 10.2165/11590130-000000000-00000.
8. Chronic comorbid conditions associated with risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Chia VM, Page JH, Rodriguez R, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24915871/ Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138:621–631. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2454-9.
9. Costs and outcomes associated with hospitalized cancer patients with neutropenic complications: a retrospective study. SC MB, PA C, DE RG. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440789/ Exp Ther Med. 2011;2:859–866. doi: 10.3892/etm.2011.312.
10. Development and validation of a risk score for febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy in patients with cancer: the FENCE score. Aagaard T, Roen A, Reekie J, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31360873/ JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2:0. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pky053.
11. Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clark OA, Lyman GH, Castro AA, Clark LG, Djulbegovic B. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15961767/ J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4198–4214. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.645.
12. Efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factor as a secondary prophylaxis along with full-dose chemotherapy following a prior cycle of febrile neutropenia. Gupta S, Singh PK, Bhatt ML, Pant MC, Gupta R, Negi MP. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21068482/ Biosci Trends. 2010;4:273–278.
13. The impact of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on chemotherapy dose intensity and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Lyman GH, Dale DC, Culakova E, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23788754/ Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2475–2484. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt226.
14. Colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia during cancer therapy. Bennett CL, Djulbegovic B, Norris LB, Armitage JO. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23514290/ N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1131–1139. doi: 10.1056/NEJMct1210890.
15. Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review. Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Lyman GH. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17634496/ J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3158–3167. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8823.
16. Meta-analysis: effect of prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors on mortality and outcomes of infection. Sung L, Nathan PC, Alibhai SM, Tomlinson GA, Beyene J. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17876022/ Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:400–411. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-6-200709180-00010.
17. G-CSF and GM-CSF in neutropenia. Mehta HM, Malandra M, Corey SJ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26254266/ J Immunol. 2015;195:1341–1349. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1500861.
18. 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21095116/ Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:8–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013.
19. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21258094/ Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:0–93. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir073.
20. 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16682719/ J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3187–3205. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4451.
21. Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Wang Y, Chen L, Liu F, Zhao N, Xu L, Fu B, Li Y. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31653961/ Sci Rep. 2019;9:15374. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51982-4.
22. History of chronic comorbidity and risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients not receiving G-CSF prophylaxis. Chao C, Page JH, Yang SJ, Rodriguez R, Huynh J, Chia VM. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24915871/ Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1821–1829. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu203.
23. The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. Williams JR. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649471/ Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:650–652. doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.050955.
24. Prevention of febrile neutropenia: use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Kelly S, Wheatley D. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649471/ Br J Cancer. 2009;101 Suppl 1:0–10. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605269.
25. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in febrile neutropenia- a single institutional study. Wani SQ, Khan T, Lone MM. http://www.npplweb.com/wjsmro/fulltext/8/1 World J Surg Med Radiat Oncol. 2019;8
26. A retrospective study of the clinical and economic burden during hospitalizations among cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Dulisse B, Li X, Gayle JA, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23452298/ J Med Econ. 2013;16:720–735. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2013.782034.
27. Hospitalizations, outcomes, and management costs of febrile neutropenia in patients from a managed care population. Kawatkar AA, Farias AJ, Chao C, Chen W, Barron R, Vogl FD, Chandler DB. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5529221/ Support Care Cancer. 2017;25:2787–2795. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3692-x.
28. Cost of cancer-related neutropenia or fever hospitalizations, United States, 2012. Tai E, Guy GP, Dunbar A, Richardson LC. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28437150/ J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:0–61. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.019588.
29. Management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: measuring quality, cost, and value. Dinan MA, Hirsch BR, Lyman GH. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25583775/ J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13:0–7. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0014.
30. Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Eldar-Lissai A, Cosler LE, Culakova E, Lyman GH. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18380630/ Value Health. 2008;11:172–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00242.x.