***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: 9083 Background : Teva 's CG-10639 is a long-acting recombinant human albumin-human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor under investigation to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia . Similar to pegfilgrastim ( PEGF ) , CG-10639 stimulates neutrophil and hematopoietic stem cell mobilization from bone marrow to peripheral blood . No clinical ly relevant immunogenicity with CG-10639 has been observed to date . The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CG-10639 versus PEGF in breast cancer patients ( BCA pts ) receiving myelosuppressive therapy . METHODS This phase II/III study was a r and omized , multi-center , active controlled trial in 334 BCA pts receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel ( DOX/DOC ) .  The study included a pilot dose escalation phase to identify two CG-10639 doses with similar effects to PEGF ( 6 mg ) , and a main phase powered for efficacy ( non-inferiority ) . During the pilot phase , patients were r and omized to receive CG-10639 30 mg or PEGF one day after DOX/DOC followed by additional cohorts receiving CG-10639 40 mg , 50 mg . The main phase of the study used a r and omized , 3-arm parallel design comparing two doses of CG-10639 and PEGF following DOX 60mg/m2 and DOC 75mg/m2 IV on day 1 for up to four 21-day cycles . The primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia ( DSN ) during cycle 1 in days ( d ) . RESULTS In the pilot phase ( n=78 ) DSN , secondary efficacy parameters and safety were similar across all treatments . CG-10639 40 mg and 50 mg doses were selected for further investigation . In the main phase ( n=256 ) , there were no statistically significant differences in mean DSN between CG-10639 40 mg ( 1.0d ) , CG-10639 50 mg ( 1.3d ) , and PEGF ( 1.2d ) in Cycle 1 . In each cycle , efficacy was comparable based on ANC nadir and recovery , the incidence and duration of Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia , and the incidence of febrile neutropenia . The type and frequency of treatment emergent AEs were similar across treatment groups . CONCLUSIONS These results support the conclusion that CG-10639 is non-inferior to PEGF based on mean DSN in BCA pts receiving myelosuppressive therapy . The overall safety profile was similar for CG-10639 and PEGF . A phase III , confirmatory study comparing CG-10639 40 mg to PEGF 6 mg is underway BACKGROUND Colony-stimulating factors ( CSFs ) significantly decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia ( FN ) , a common complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy . Pegfilgrastim ( 6 mg ) , introduced in 2002 , has a sustained duration of action , with a single dose comparable in efficacy to daily injections of filgrastim ( 5 g per kg per day ) for 10 to 11 days ; both agents should be initiated 24 hours after completing chemotherapy . OBJECTIVES To ( 1 ) describe the use of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in oncology practice s throughout the United States and ( 2 ) compare their effectiveness in actual practice as measured by the outcome of febrile neutropenia  in patients who received chemotherapy regimens administered every 3 to 4 weeks for breast , lung , ovarian , colon cancer , or lymphoma and who received a CSF prior to developing FN . METHODS Data were retrospectively obtained from the medical records of a cohort of adult patients aged 18 years or older treated in 99 community oncology practice s in the United States in 2001 and 2003 . Eligible patients were treated with chemotherapy every 3 to 4 weeks for breast , lung , ovarian , colon cancer , or lymphoma and were users of filgrastim in 2001 ( prior to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of  pegfilgrastim in January 2002 ) or users of either filgrastim or pegfilgrastim or both CSF agents in 2003 . RESULTS Pegfilgrastim was initiated , on average , 2.4 days ( SD + /-3.2 ) after chemotherapy in the first cycle of use and 1.9 ( + /-3.0 ) days in subsequent cycles of use . In contrast , filgrastim was started on average 7.7 ( + /-6.5 ) days and 4.9 ( 4.6 ) days after chemotherapy in the first and subsequent cycles of use in 2001 , increasing to 9.6 ( + /-6.2 ) and 6.4 ( + /-6.4 ) days in 2003 . In the first cycle of CSF use , filgrastim was administered for an average of 5.2 ( + /-3.5 ) days to 583 patients in 2001 and 3.7 ( + /-2.8 ) days to 868 patients in 2003 ( P < 0.001 ) . Among patients who received more than 1 cycle of filgrastim ( n = 457 in 2001 and n = 489 in 2003 ; 78.4 % and 56.3 % of filgrastim users , respectively ) , the mean days of filgrastim administered in subsequent cycles was 6.0 ( + /-3.5 ) in 2001 and 4.6 ( + /-3.2 ) in 2003 . Pegfilgrastim was administered as a single dose per chemotherapy course to 1,412 patients in 2003 . Patients who received pegfilgrastim were more likely to have at least 1 myelosuppressive drug ( 74.8 % ) in the regimen compared with patients who received filgrastim in 2003 ( 70.0 % , P = 0.013 ) , but a greater proportion of filgrastim patients in 2003 ( 19.4 % ) had advanced-stage disease compared with pegfilgrastim patients ( 14.8 % , P = 0.005 ) . More patients who received filgrastim in 2003 ( 36.2 % ) had a cancer other than breast cancer or non-Hodgkin 's lymphoma compared with those who received pegfilgrastim ( 29.5 % , P = 0.001 ) . A total of 94 of 1,451 patients ( 6.5 % ) who received filgrastim experienced FN compared with 67 of 1,412 patients ( 4.7 % ) for pegfilgrastim . The odds ratio of developing FN among patients who received filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was 1.41 ( 95 % confidence interval , 1.02 - 1.96 ; P = 0.040 ) after adjusting for patient and chemotherapy regimen characteristics . CONCLUSION In this retrospective study of patients treated in 99 community oncology practice s , patients who received filgrastim often initiated treatment later than recommended and received fewer days per cycle than demonstrated to be effective in r and omized controlled trials . Pegfilgrastim was generally initiated earlier within the course of chemotherapy compared with filgrastim , and because of its sustained duration of action , only a single injection was required . In these patients treated with a heterogeneous group of chemotherapy regimens with a broad range of risk of FN , overall , an absolute 1.8 % increase in the incidence of developing FN was observed in patients who received filgrastim compared with patients who received pegfilgrastim , ( absolute rates of 6.5 % and 4.7 % , respectively ) BACKGROUND TAC ( docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide ) is associated with high incidences of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia ( FN ) . This analysis compared the efficacies of four regimens for primary prophylaxis of FN and related toxic effects in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant TAC . PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage T2-T4 primary breast cancer were scheduled to receive 6 - 8 cycles of TAC .  Primary prophylaxis was : ciprofloxacin 500 mg orally twice daily on days 5 - 14 ( n = 253 patients ; 1478 cycles ) , daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor ( G-CSF ) ( filgrastim 5 microg/kg/day or lenograstim 150 microg/m(2)/day ) on days 5 - 10 ( n = 377 ; 2400 cycles ) , pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 2 ( n = 305 ; 1930 cycles ) , or pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin ( n = 321 ; 1890 cycles ) . RESULTS Pegfilgrastim with/without ciprofloxacin was significantly more effective than daily G-CSF or ciprofloxacin in preventing FN ( 5 % and 7 % versus 18 % and 22 % of patients ; all P < 0.001 ) , grade 4 neutropenia , and leukopenia .  Pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin completely prevented first cycle FN ( P < 0.01 versus pegfilgrastim alone ) and fatal neutropenic events . CONCLUSION Ciprofloxacin alone , or daily G-CSF from day 5 - 10 ( as in common practice ) , provided suboptimal protection against FN and related toxic effects in patients receiving TAC . Pegfilgrastim was significantly more effective in this setting , especially if given with ciprofloxacin PURPOSE We evaluated the efficacy of pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel in breast cancer patients . PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were r and omly assigned to either placebo or pegfilgrastim 6 mg subcutaneously on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle of 100 mg/m(2 ) docetaxel . The primary end point was the percentage of patients developing febrile neutropenia ( defined as body temperature > /= 38.2 degrees C and neutrophil count < 0.5 x 10(9)/L on the same day of the fever or the day after ) . Secondary end points were incidence of hospitalizations associated with a diagnosis of febrile neutropenia , intravenous ( IV ) anti-infectives required for febrile neutropenia , and the ability to maintain planned chemotherapy dose on time . Patients with febrile neutropenia were converted to open-label pegfilgrastim in subsequent cycles . RESULTS Nine hundred twenty-eight patients received placebo ( n = 465 ) or pegfilgrastim ( n = 463 ) . Patients receiving pegfilgrastim , compared with patients receiving placebo , had a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia ( 1 % v 17 % , respectively ; P < .001 ) , febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization ( 1 % v 14 % , respectively ; P < .001 ) , and use of IV anti-infectives ( 2 % v 10 % , respectively ; P < .001 ) . The percentage of patients receiving the planned dose on time was similar between patients receiving pegfilgrastim and patients who initially received placebo ( 80 % and 78 % , respectively ) , as would be expected of the study design . Pegfilgrastim was generally well tolerated and safe , and the adverse events reported were typical of this patient population . CONCLUSION First and subsequent cycle use of pegfilgrastim with a moderately myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen markedly reduced febrile neutropenia , febrile neutropenia-related hospitalizations , and IV anti-infective use Aim : Febrile neutropenia ( FN ) is a highly prevalent complication of chemotherapy , particularly in patients with non‐Hodgkin 's lymphoma . This study aim ed to compare the efficacy of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in Asian lymphoma patients by evaluating the incidence of FN and associated complications Aim of the study PROFIL was a prospect i ve observational study conducted to investigate physicians ’ evaluation of febrile neutropenia ( FN ) risk and reasons for giving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis ( PP ) in routine clinical practice in Pol and . Material and methods Adult cancer patients treated with chemotherapy ( CT ) , assessed by investigators as having high overall FN risk , and who received pegfilgrastim in cycle 1 were enrolled between 03/2009 and 09/2010 . Investigators assessed FN risk of the CT regimen , individual risk factors , and overall FN risk , and were asked to provide the most important reasons for providing pegfilgrastim PP . Investigator-assessed CT FN risk was compared with guideline classification . Results Data were analysed from 1006 breast , ovarian , and lung cancer , and non-Hodgkin ( NHL ) and Hodgkin lymphoma ( HL ) patients . The most important reasons for using pegfilgrastim PP were high CT FN risk and advanced disease ; these were consistent across tumour types and treatment intent . The investigators generally assessed high CT FN risk in agreement with guideline classification . Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 % of patients , most commonly in HL , NHL , and patients with advanced disease . Conclusions High CT FN risk and advanced 
    Output:
    
Conclusions Pegfilgrastim reduced the incidence of FN and CIN compared with no prophylaxis .
Most studies showed better efficacy and effectiveness for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim .
Efficacy and safety profiles of lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were similar to pegfilgrastim