Advertisement

help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Oncologist, Vol. 12, No. 12, 1464, December 2007; doi:10.1634/theoncologist.12-12-1464
© 2007 AlphaMed Press

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Khatcheressian, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Smith, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Khatcheressian, J. L.

Letter to the Editor


letter

Response to "Neutropenic Events in Community Practices Reduced by First and Subsequent Cycle Pegfilgrastim Use"

Thomas J. Smith, James L. Khatcheressian

Division of Hematology/Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

Correspondence: James L. Khatcheressian, M.D., Virginia Commonwealth University, Sanger Hall, Room 6-030, 1101 East Marshall Street, P.O. Box 980230, Richmond, Virginia 23298-0230, USA. Telephone: 804-828-9723; Fax: 804-828-8079; e-mail: jkhatche{at}vcu.edu

Received June 7, 2007; accepted for publication September 24, 2007.

Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the authors, planners, reviewers, or staff managers of this article.

We read with interest the study by Ozer et al. [1]. However, several issues deserve further discussion or documentation, as follows.

  1. Was it appropriate medical care for these patients to receive pegfilgrastim?
    The expected rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) was 8.2% based on registry data. The available guidelines at the time suggested a cutoff risk of about 40%, but these patients had good performance status and few comorbidities. No other data were presented to justify pegfilgrastim use.
  2. Were patients informed of the benefits, risks, and alternatives when receiving pegfilgrastim, when the expected risk of FN was only 8.2%?
    G-CSFs are not harmless drugs. Bone pain is seen in up to one third of patients who receive G-CSF [2] and the odds ratio for bone pain is 2.9 from a meta-analysis [3]. There is also concern that these drugs may increase the risk for subsequent hematologic malignancies [4].
  3. Who paid for the pegfilgrastim, because it was used outside the national guidelines?
    The cost of this drug is substantial. If 2,202 patients received pegfilgrastim, for a median of 4.6 cycles, at a cost of $3,139 per injection (http://www.drugstore.com), the total cost of drug alone would be $31,795,559. Was the cost borne by the sponsor or by the patients and their insurers?

Practicing oncologists should not conclude that the use of pegfilgrastim is indicated when the risk for FN is only 8% in patients with a good performance status and few comorbidities. This question can only be answered by a randomized clinical trial.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 References
 

  1. Ozer H, Mirtsching B, Rader M et al. Neutropenic events in community practices reduced by first and subsequent cycle pegfilgrastim use. The Oncologist 2007;12:484–494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Venturini M, Del Mastro L, Aitini E et al. Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: Results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1724–1733.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Lyman GH, Kuderer NM, Djulbegovic B. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients receiving dose-intensive cancer chemotherapy: A meta-analysis. Am J Med 2002;112:406–411.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Hershman D, Neugut AI, Jacobson JS et al. Acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome following use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors during breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:196–205.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Khatcheressian, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Smith, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Khatcheressian, J. L.


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS