Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 1

5614 - Comparison of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in sarcoma patients receiving highly myelosuppressive chemotherapy.


28 Sep 2019


Poster Display session 1


Tumour Site



Paolo Tarantino


Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v683-v709. 10.1093/annonc/mdz283


P. Tarantino1, P. Zagami1, P. Trillo1, F. Conforti2, L. Pala2, S. Morganti1, E. Ferraro1, G. Viale1, B.A. Duso1, P. D'Amico1, A. Marra1, D. Trapani1, T.M. De Pas2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Department Of Hematology And Oncology, University Of Milan, Division of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 - Milan/IT
  • 2 Medical Oncology Of Melanoma, Sarcoma And Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 - Milan/IT


Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 5614


Highly myelosuppressive chemotherapy (HMC) is the standard treatment for several types of sarcoma. Severe neutropenia is a common adverse event, which can lead to febrile neutropenia (FN) and major infections requiring hospitalization, with up to 15% mortality rate. Several trials showed an equal efficacy of filgrastim (F) and Peg-filgrastim (Peg-F) for preventing FN in many cancer types, but limited evidence is available in adult sarcoma patients (pts). We retrospectively compared the incidence of FN and hospitalization due to neutropenic infections in sarcoma pts treated with HMC with the support of either F or Peg-F.


We reviewed data of pts consecutively treated in our institution from Sep 2014 to Mar 2019. Inclusion criteria were: age >18 years; diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma; at least 1 cycle of HMC supported by prophylactic F or Peg-F. Included HMC regimens were: doxorubicin ≥60 mg/m² (D) + ifosfamide ≥9 g/m² (IFO) +/- vincristine; high-dose IFO (≥12 g/m); IFO ≥9 g/m² + etoposide. Neutropenia prophylaxis included F (5-7 doses) or Peg-F (1 dose) according to physician‘s choice. χ2-Test was used to compare the outcomes; p ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.


79 pts were found eligible, receiving 330 cycles of HMC. F and peg-F were used as prophylaxis in 66.6% (n = 220) and 33.3% (n = 110) of cases, respectively. The rate of FN was higher in the Peg-F group compared to the F group (11.8% vs 6.8, p = 0.12), while the rate of cycles complicated by a hospitalization was 9% and 3.2% (p = 0.02), respectively. 8/16 hospitalizations were due to pneumonia. One death during hospitalization occurred in the Peg-F group. 70% of hospitalizations occurred in metastatic pts, whereas 30% occurred during adjuvant treatments.


The use of peg-F was associated with a significantly higher rate of neutropenic infections requiring hospitalization compared with F in adult sarcoma pts receiving HMC. FN rate was numerically higher in pts receiving peg-F, not reaching statistical significance. These data suggest that F prophylaxis may be preferred in this setting to peg-F. Overall, prophylaxis with both agents provided a relatively low rate of hospitalizations and FN, compared with the myelosuppressive potential of the regimens.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.


Has not received any funding.


All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.