Summary and Comparison of Myeloid Growth Factor Guidelines in Patients Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy

Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 157)


Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its complications are major dose-limiting toxicities of cancer chemotherapy. The myeloid growth factors have been shown to reduce the risk of neutropenic events across malignancies, regimens, and associated risk categories often enabling the delivery of greater chemotherapy dose intensity. Three different practice guidelines for the myeloid growth factors have recently been published by major professional organizations. A comprehensive review and comparison of the guidelines using a priori structured content criteria and a previously validated quality appraisal tool are reported. Consistency in the final recommendations from these guidelines is observed for primary prophylaxis with the colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) when the risk of febrile neutropenia is in the range of 20% or greater. There is also consistency in the recommendation that patients receiving regimens associated with lower risk should have CSF use guided by individual risk assessment. Critical quality appraisal indicates that the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, and applicability of the guidelines differ little. There is more emphasis on comprehensive literature reviews in the ASCO and EORTC guidelines while the NCCN guidelines are more current based on systematic annual updates. The clarity of presentation also favors the NCCN guidelines with recommendations generally presented as both text and algorithmic diagram. All three new or updated guidelines recommend prophylactic use of the myeloid growth factors in patients at greater than a 20% risk of febrile neutropenia and in those with important factors increasing individual risk of neutropenic complications.


Summary Comparison Myeloid Growth Factor Guidelines chemotherapy 


  1. 1.
    Dale DC, McCarter GC, Crawford J, et al. Myelotoxicity and dose intensity of chemotherapy: reporting practices from randomized clinical trials. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2003;1:440–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lyman GH, Morrison VA, Dale DC, Crawford J, et al. Risk of febrile neutropenia among patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma receiving CHOP chemotherapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2003;44:2069–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lyman GH. Guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network on the use of the myeloid growth factors with cancer chemotherapy: a review of the evidence. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2005;3:557–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuderer NM, Dale D, Crawford J, Cosler L, Lyman GH. The morbidity, mortality and cost of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. Cancer. 2006;106:2258–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lyman GH, Dale D, Crawford J. Incidence, practice patterns and predictors of low dose intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: results of a nationwide study of community practices. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4524–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lyman GH, Dale D, Friedberg J, Crawford J, Fisher RI. Incidence and predictors of low chemotherapy dose intensity in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4302–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A, et al. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:901–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 2005;365:1687–1717.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budman DR, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al. Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1205–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonneterre J, Roche H, Kerbrat P, et al. Epirubicin increases long-term survival in adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with poor-prognosis, node-positive, early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2686–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1431–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pfreundschuh M, Trümper L, Kloess M, et al. 2-weekly or 3-weekly CHOP chemotherapy with or without etoposide for the treatment of elderly patients with aggressive lymphomas: results of the NHL-B2 trial of the DSHNHL. Blood. 2004;104:634–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Griggs JJ, Sorbero MES, Lyman GH. Undertreatment of obese women receiving breast cancer chemotherapy. Int Arch Med. 2005;165:1267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chu E, DeVita V. Principles of medical oncology. In: DeVita VT, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 2006. pp. 295–306.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crawford J, Ozer H, Stoller R, et al. Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:164–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;112:406–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osby E, Hagberg H, Kvaloy S, et al. CHOP is superior to CNOP in elderly patients with aggressive lymphoma while outcome is unaffected by filgrastim treatment: results of a Nordic Lymphoma Group randomized trial. Blood. 2003;101:3840–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doorduijn JK, van der HB, van Imhoff GW, et al. CHOP compared with CHOP plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3041–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Timmer-Bonte JN, de Boo TM, Smit HJ, et al. Prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by prophylactic antibiotics plus or minus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7974–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vogel C, Wojtukiewicz MZ, Caroll RR, et al. First and subsequent cycle use of pegfilgrastim prevents febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1178–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuderer NM, Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH. Meta-analysis of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:758 s. Abstract 8117.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lyman GH, Lyman CH, Agboola O. Risk models for predicting chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Oncologist. 2005;10:427–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lyman GH, Lyman CG, Sanderson RA, Balducci L. Decision analysis of hematopoietic growth factor use in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:488–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lyman GH, Kuderer N, Greene J, Balducci L. The economics of febrile neutropenia: implications for the use of colony-stimulating factors. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:1857–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lyman GH, Kuderer NM. Economics of hematopoietic growth factors. In: Morstyn G, Foote M, Lieschke GJ, editors. Cancer drug discovery and development. Hematopoietic growth factors in oncology: basic science and clinical therapeutics. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc; 2004. pp. 409–443.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyman GH, Kuderer NM, Crawford J, et al. Prospective validation of a risk model for first cycle neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:483 s. Abstract 8561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology. Recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(11):2471–508.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ozer H, Armitage JO, Bennett CL, et al. Update of recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology Growth Factors Expert Panel. J Clin Oncol. 2000;2000(18):3558–85.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, et al. Update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J. Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3187–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Crawford J, Althaus B, Armitage J, et al. Myeloid growth factors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2005;3:540–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crawford J, Althaus B, Armitage J, Blayney DW, Cataland S, Dale DC, Demetri GD, Foran J, Heaney ML, Htoy S, Kloth DD, Lyman GH, Michaud L, Motl S, Vadham-Raj S, Wong MK. Myeloid growth factors. 2006.
  32. 32.
    Aapro MS, Cameron DA, Pettengell R, et al. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Guidelines Taskforce. EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in adult patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Eur J Cancer 2006;42: 2433–53.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Repetto L, Biganzoli L, Koehne CH, et al. EORTC cancer in the elderly task force guidelines for the use of colony-stimulating factors in elderly patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(16):2264–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    The AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of the Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument.
  35. 35.
    AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qula Saf Health Care. 2003;12:18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Burgers JS, Fervers B, Haugh M, et al. International assessment of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in oncology using the appraisal of guidelines and research and evaluation instrument. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2000–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shanaeyfelt TM, Mayo-Snith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 2006;281:1900–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke University and the Duke Comprehensive Cancer CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University of Rochester School of Medicine and DentistryRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations