Impact of Prophylactic Use of PEG-rhG-CSF on First-Line Immunochemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Cohort Study

Li Sun MD, Yuan Tian MD, Shuling Zhang MD, PhD, Letian Huang MD, Jietao Ma MD, PhD, Chengbo Han MD, PhD
{"title":"Impact of Prophylactic Use of PEG-rhG-CSF on First-Line Immunochemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Cohort Study","authors":"Li Sun MD,&nbsp;Yuan Tian MD,&nbsp;Shuling Zhang MD, PhD,&nbsp;Letian Huang MD,&nbsp;Jietao Ma MD, PhD,&nbsp;Chengbo Han MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jtocrr.2024.100780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This study aimed to assess the impact of prophylactic use of PEG-rhG-CSF on first-line immunochemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line immunochemotherapy at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between January 2019 and July 2024 was selected for this study. Patients were divided into the following two groups: a treatment group that received prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF (≥1 cycle) 48 hours after immunochemotherapy and a control group that did not receive PEG-rhG-CSF. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, and safety. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce potential confounders.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 220 patients were enrolled, with 87 in the treatment group and 133 in the control group. Median PFS was 10.5 months in both the treatment and control groups (<em>p</em> = 0.86), and median OS was 33.9 months in the treatment group versus not reached in the control group (<em>p</em> = 0.71). The overall response rate was 64.4% in the treatment group and 58.6% in the control group (<em>p</em> = 0.40). After propensity score-matched analysis (each group included 78 patients), median PFS was 12.6 months in the treatment group versus 10.5 months in the control group (<em>p</em> = 0.99), and median OS remained 30.3 months in the treatment group versus not reached in the control group (<em>p</em> = 0.85). The treatment group had a reduced incidence of chemotherapy interruptions, any grade of leukopenia, any grade of neutropenia, and grades 3 to 5 neutropenia, without an increase in immune-related adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The prophylactic use of PEG-rhG-CSF in patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing first-line immunochemotherapy did not compromise efficacy and safety. It reduced chemotherapy interruptions and neutropenia, without increasing immune-related adverse events, thus supporting safe and uninterrupted treatment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17675,"journal":{"name":"JTO Clinical and Research Reports","volume":"6 2","pages":"Article 100780"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11773054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTO Clinical and Research Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666364324001504","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to assess the impact of prophylactic use of PEG-rhG-CSF on first-line immunochemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.

Methods

A cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line immunochemotherapy at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between January 2019 and July 2024 was selected for this study. Patients were divided into the following two groups: a treatment group that received prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF (≥1 cycle) 48 hours after immunochemotherapy and a control group that did not receive PEG-rhG-CSF. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, and safety. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce potential confounders.

Results

A total of 220 patients were enrolled, with 87 in the treatment group and 133 in the control group. Median PFS was 10.5 months in both the treatment and control groups (p = 0.86), and median OS was 33.9 months in the treatment group versus not reached in the control group (p = 0.71). The overall response rate was 64.4% in the treatment group and 58.6% in the control group (p = 0.40). After propensity score-matched analysis (each group included 78 patients), median PFS was 12.6 months in the treatment group versus 10.5 months in the control group (p = 0.99), and median OS remained 30.3 months in the treatment group versus not reached in the control group (p = 0.85). The treatment group had a reduced incidence of chemotherapy interruptions, any grade of leukopenia, any grade of neutropenia, and grades 3 to 5 neutropenia, without an increase in immune-related adverse events.

Conclusions

The prophylactic use of PEG-rhG-CSF in patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing first-line immunochemotherapy did not compromise efficacy and safety. It reduced chemotherapy interruptions and neutropenia, without increasing immune-related adverse events, thus supporting safe and uninterrupted treatment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
145
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
Acknowledgment of Reviewers EGFR-Mutated Lung Adenocarcinoma With Li–Fraumeni Syndrome: The Imperative for Germline Testing in Patients With a Family History, a Case Report Afatinib and Necitumumab in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC with Acquired Resistance to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Impact of Prophylactic Use of PEG-rhG-CSF on First-Line Immunochemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Cohort Study Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis on Image-Guided Biopsy Samples in Early-Stage Lung Cancer: Feasibility Study and Comparison With Surgical Samples
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1