Effectiveness of filgrastim and polyethylene glycol-filgrastim in the treatment of postchemotherapy neutropenia in children: Phase I clinical trial

Abstract

Background: One of the most common side effects of chemotherapy in cancer patients is neutropenia that can result in hospitalization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-filgrastim compared with filgrastim in the recovery of neutropenia. Methods: This study was a Phase I clinical trial conducted among patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia aged <16 years who were referred to the Ali Asghar Hospital, Tehran, Iran, from April 2012 until October 2013. Eleven patients were selected, and filgrastim and PEG-filgrastim were injected subcutaneously at a dose of 5–10 μg/kg/day for 7 days and 100 μg/kg as a single dose, respectively. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was checked 7 days after the last injection in the two groups. Results: The mean age of the patients was 8.82 ± 4.36 years (3–15 years). Six boys (54.5%) and five girls (45.5%) participated in the study. ANC increase among patients treated with PEG-filgrastim or filgrastim was analyzed separately, and the results showed statistically significant differences between the study groups (P = 0.038). Conclusions: According to the findings, it can be concluded that the PEG-filgrastim is better than filgrastim alone to improve neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Keywords

Chemotherapy - children - filgrastim - neutropenia - polyethylene glycol-filgrastim

Publication History

Article published online:
08 June 2021

• References

• 1 Hoekman K, van der Vijgh WJ, Vermorken JB. Clinical and preclinical modulation of chemotherapy-induced toxicity in patients with cancer. Drugs 1999; 57: 133-55
• 2 Lowenthal RKM, Eaton K. Toxicity of chemotherapy. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1996; 10: 967-90
• 3 Bodey GP, Buckley M, Sathe YS, Freireich EJ. Quantitative relationships between circulating leukocytes and infection in patients with acute leukemia. Ann Intern Med 1966; 64: 328-40
• 4 Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, Ozer H, Armitage JO, Balducci L. et al. 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3187
• 5 Pizzo PA, Poplack DG. Principles and practice of pediatric oncology. 6th ed., Vol. 2. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW): Philadelphia 2011; 2: p.1177
• 6 Beveridge RA, Miller JA, Kales AN, Binder RA, Robert NJ, Harvey JH. et al. A comparison of efficacy of sargramostim (yeast-derived RhuGM-CSF) and filgrastim (bacteria-derived RhuG-CSF) in the therapeutic setting of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. Cancer Invest 1998; 16: 366-73
• 7 Morstyn G, Campbell L, Souza LM, Alton NK, Keech J, Green M. et al. Effect of granulocyte colony stimulating factor on neutropenia induced by cytotoxic chemotherapy. Lancet 1988; 1: 667-72
• 8 Pui CH, Boyett JM, Hughes WT, Rivera GK, Hancock ML, Sandlund JT. et al. Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after induction chemotherapy in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1781-7
• 9 Bunn PAJr, Crowley J, Kelly K, Hazuka MB, Beasley K, Upchurch C. et al. Chemoradiotherapy with or without granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in the treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: A prospective phase III randomized study of the Southwest oncology group. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 1632-41
• 10 Staar S, Rudat V, Stuetzer H, Dietz A, Volling P, Schroeder M. et al. Intensified hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy limits the additional benefit of simultaneous chemotherapy--results of a multicentric randomized German trial in advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 50: 1161-71
• 11 Molineux G. The design and development of pegfilgrastim (PEG-rmetHuG-CSF, Neulasta). Curr Pharm Des 2004; 10: 1235-44
• 12 Zamboni WC. Pharmacokinetics of pegfilgrastim. Pharmacotherapy 2003; 23: 9S-14S
• 13 Spunt SL, Irving H, Frost J, Sender L, Guo M, Yang BB. et al. Phase II, randomized, open-label study of pegfilgrastim-supported VDC/IE chemotherapy in pediatric sarcoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1329-36
• 14 Wendelin G, Lackner H, Schwinger W, Sovinz P, Urban C. Once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2005; 27: 449-51
• 15 te Poele EM, Kamps WA, Tamminga RY, Leeuw JA, Postma A, de Bont ES. Pegfilgrastim in pediatric cancer patients. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2005; 27: 627-9
• 16 Milano-Bausset E, Gaudart J, Rome A, Coze C, Gentet JC, Padovani L. et al. Retrospective comparison of neutropenia in children with Ewing sarcoma treated with chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or pegylated G-CSF. Clin Ther 2009; 31 Pt 2: 2388-95
• 17 Fritsch P, Schwinger W, Schwantzer G, Lackner H, Sovinz P, Wendelin G. et al. Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization with pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim in children and young adults with malignancies. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010; 54: 134-7
• 18 Fox E, Widemann BC, Hawkins DS, Jayaprakash N, Dagher R, Aikin AA. et al. Randomized trial and pharmacokinetic study of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after dose-intensive chemotherapy in young adults and children with sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 7361-7
• 19 Andre N, Kababri ME, Bertrand P, Rome A, Coze C, Gentet JC. et al. Safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim in children with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Anticancer Drugs 2007; 18: 277-81
• 20 Shi YK, Chen Q, Zhu YZ, He XH, Wang HQ, Jiang ZF. et al. Pegylated filgrastim is comparable with filgrastim as support for commonly used chemotherapy regimens: A multicenter, randomized, crossover phase 3 study. Anticancer Drugs 2013; 24: 641-7