Abstract
Purpose
Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) may increase infection risk for cancer patients; however, there is limited understanding on the quantitative relationships between severity and duration of CIN and infection risk.
Methods
This study combined individual data from adult cancer patients receiving no granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during the first chemotherapy cycle in six trials. We used area over the curve (AOC) of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) time-response curve (below different thresholds) to measure the combined effect of severity and duration of CIN. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models quantified the hazard of first infection associated with duration of grade 4 or grade 3/4 CIN and the hazard associated with AOC.
Results
We analyzed data from 271 patients who had small cell lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, head and neck cancer, or breast cancer; 63.8 % of the patients had advanced cancer, and 77.5 % received chemotherapy regimens with high risk of febrile neutropenia. In the first cycle, 18.8 % of the patients had infection-related hospitalizations. Each additional day patients had grade 3/4 or grade 4 CIN was associated with 28 % (95 % CI 7, 51 %) and 30 % (95 % CI 10, 54 %) increased risk of infection-related hospitalization, respectively. Each unit increase in AOC (day × 109/L ANC), with threshold of ANC < 0.5 × 109/L, was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.98; 95 % CI 1.35, 2.90).
Conclusions
Infection risk increases dramatically with each additional day of grade 3 or 4 CIN. Interventions limiting CIN severity and duration are of critical importance to reduce infection risk in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Myelosuppressive chemotherapy is regularly used to treat different malignancies; however, it is often complicated by hematopoietic toxicity [1]. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) is the most common hematologic toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy and can result in serious consequences [2]. Neutrophils are the most abundant leukocytes in circulation and play a crucial role in defending against infections [3]. Patients with CIN are thus at high risk for developing infection [2]. For patients with cancer, infection can be a life-threatening complication that is associated with suboptimal delivery of planned chemotherapy and significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resource use [4–6].
Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is a measure of the concentration of neutrophils in blood and is generally used to grade severity of neutropenia [7]. Myelosuppressive chemotherapy decreases ANC until it reaches its lowest point (the nadir), and ANC subsequently rises after bone marrow recovery. The shape of the ANC trajectory curve during chemotherapy varies based on the type of chemotherapy administered, patient characteristics, and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) [8, 9].
G-CSF regulates production of neutrophils within the bone marrow and affects neutrophil progenitor proliferation and differentiation [10, 11]. Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) [12] and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) [13] are recombinant human G-CSFs indicated to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia (FN; neutropenia with fever), in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs. Several randomized controlled trials have shown that chemotherapy-treated cancer patients who received prophylactic G-CSF experienced a substantially earlier and shallower ANC nadir and a more rapid recovery of ANC and lower incidence of infection (characterized by FN) compared with patients who did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis [14–16]. Prior studies provided some evidence that cancer patients with lower ANCs and longer duration of severe CIN during chemotherapy were at higher risk of developing infection [17, 18]. However, there is limited information on the quantitative relationship between ANC trajectory and infection risk.
The current study was conducted to quantify the relationship between severity and duration of CIN and risk of infection. We pooled individual patient data from several randomized controlled trials to estimate the hazard of first infection associated with different severities and durations of CIN among patients with nonmyeloid cancer who did not receive prophylactic G-CSF. An understanding of this relationship will facilitate clinical decision-making with respect to the need for preventing infections in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
Methods
Study design
The current study pooled individual patient data from six phase 2 or 3 randomized controlled trials sponsored by Amgen Inc. These trials were originally designed to evaluate the effectiveness of G-CSF (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) in reducing CIN and infection in cancer patients who were receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In the present study, we focused exclusively on the control/placebo arms in which no prophylactic G-CSF was administered to quantify the relationship between severity and duration of CIN with risk of infection-related hospitalization.
Study population
From the Amgen-sponsored phase 2 or 3 clinical trials in CIN, we included trials that had arms within which patients met the following criteria: adult patients with nonmyeloid malignancies who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy; no prophylactic G-CSF was used; body temperature was measured on a daily basis; ANC was measured at least once at baseline of cycle 1 (days 1–4) and at least three times per week between day 4 and cycle end; and infection or FN was included as a study endpoint.
Patients in the selected trials were considered eligible for inclusion in the current analysis if they had ANC ≥ 1500/μL and normal body temperature before chemotherapy initiation. Patients were excluded if they had a recent infection before chemotherapy, had prior bone marrow or stem cell transplant, received prophylactic antibiotics, or received pelvic irradiation or radiation therapy extending beyond a single involved field within 4 weeks before chemotherapy initiation or during the first chemotherapy cycle.
Exposure and endpoint
Area over the curve (AOC) of ANC time-response curve, below different thresholds, was used to measure both the severity and duration of CIN. AOC was calculated as the area above the ANC time-response curve in the first chemotherapy cycle and below the threshold of 0.5 × 109/L or 1.0 × 109/L. The threshold is based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: ANC < 0.5 × 109/L is categorized as grade 4 neutropenia, and between 0.5 × 109/L and 1.0 × 109/L as grade 3 neutropenia [7].
We determined whether patients met our definition of infection-related hospitalization by reviewing reasons for hospitalization in patients’ case report forms. Patients were classified as having infection-related hospitalization if at least one reason for hospitalization was an infection-related condition (including FN).
Statistical analysis
Descriptive analyses were conducted to characterize study patients’ demographics, disease and treatment characteristics, and medical history. Body surface area (BSA) was calculated using the Mosteller formula [19]. Chemotherapy regimens’ risk categories for developing FN were classified based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline [20]. For regimens that remain unclassified, FN incidence among patients treated with the regimen but with no G-CSF prophylaxis reported either in the literature or in Amgen-sponsored clinical trials was used to determine FN risk category.
The log interpolation technique was used to derive ANC on days without a measurement, using the two ANC measurements between which it was bounded. ANC nadir was the lowest ANC value that occurred over the chemotherapy cycle. Time to ANC nadir was calculated as the number of days for a patient’s ANC to reach the nadir. Study patients were censored from the analyses of ANC trajectory upon occurrence of infection-related hospitalization, since potential treatment changes after infection might affect ANC trajectory. AOC of ANC was calculated using the Riemann sum method assuming ANC values to be constant within each day [21].
Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to quantify the hazard of first infection associated with each additional day of grade 4 CIN (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L) or grade 3/4 CIN (ANC < 1.0 × 109/L) as well as the hazard associated with AOC, all in the first chemotherapy cycle. The CIN exposure variable was coded as 0 if the patient had not developed CIN at a specific time t and was coded as 1 if the patient had developed CIN prior to or at time t. Potential confounders adjusted for in the model included sex, age (per 10 years increase), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0, 1, 2–3; nominal scaled indicator variable with ECOG 0 as the reference category), body mass index (BMI) (per 5 kg/m2), data source (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim trial), tumor stage (advanced, non-advanced), comorbidities related to impaired neutrophil function (congestive heart failure, diabetes, renal disease, or thyroid disorder), and comorbidities related to disturbance of barrier function (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [22]. Standard disease definitions were created to identify patients with history of relevant comorbidities from the clinical trial case report forms. Missing ECOG status for five patients was imputed with the median value. Missing weight and/or height for three patients were imputed with their respective medians by sex to derive BMI and BSA.
Results
Pegfilgrastim and filgrastim CIN clinical trials conducted by Amgen Inc. and for which patient-level data were available in-house were identified. Of the 24 pegfilgrastim and 19 filgrastim phase 2 or 3 trials identified, 22 pegfilgrastim and 15 filgrastim trials were excluded based on the study population or design (Fig. 1). Data from patients who met the eligibility criteria from the remaining six studies (see Online Resource 1) were analyzed.
A total of 271 patients were eligible for inclusion in the current study. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. Of the eligible patients, 60.5 % were male, 95.2 % were white, and 94.1 % had ECOG performance status ≤2. Mean (± standard deviation (SD)) age of patients was 59.9 (±8.6) years. Of the patients, 56.1 % had small cell lung cancer, 24.4 % had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 11.4 % had head and neck cancer, and 8.1 % had breast cancer. Most (63.8 %) patients had advanced cancer, and most (77.5 %) received chemotherapy regimens associated with greater than 20 % FN risk.
In the first chemotherapy cycle, 238 patients (87.8 %) developed grade 3/4 CIN, and 216 patients (79.7 %) developed grade 4 CIN. Median (Q (quartile) 1, Q3) baseline ANC was 5.24 (3.90, 6.90) ×109/L, median (Q1, Q3) ANC at nadir was 0.08 (0.03, 0.32) ×109/L, and median time for ANC to reach the nadir was 13 days (Table 2). Figure 2 presents the daily median ANC (Q1, Q3) during cycle 1 on a natural logarithmic scale.
During the first chemotherapy cycle, 51 patients (18.8 %) were hospitalized for infection-related diseases. For each additional day that patients had grade 3/4 or grade 4 CIN, their risk of infection-related hospitalization increased by 28 % (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.28, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.07, 1.51) and 30 % (HR = 1.30, 95 % CI 1.10, 1.54), respectively (Table 3).
Table 4 shows elevated risk of infection-related hospitalization associated with each unit (day × 109/L ANC) increase in AOC. Each unit increase in the AOC with threshold of ANC < 0.5 × 109/L (grade 4 neutropenia) was associated with an almost two–fold increased risk of infection-related hospitalization (HR = 1.98, 95 % CI 1.35, 2.90). With the threshold of ANC < 1.0 × 109/L (grade 3/4 neutropenia), each unit increase in AOC was also associated with an elevated risk of infection-related hospitalization (HR = 1.42, 95 % CI 1.17, 1.72).
Discussion
The results of the current study add further evidence to earlier findings that prolonged exposure to severe neutropenia results in an increased risk of infection. Increase in AOC of ANC below given thresholds, a composite measurement for both severity and duration of CIN, is associated with a higher risk of infection in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Infection risk increased about 30 % with each additional day of exposure to grade 3 or grade 4 CIN.
Infection has significant clinical consequences and poses a substantial financial cost for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The inpatient case fatality rate with FN was reported to be 2.6–10.6 % [4, 23–25]. FN may also result in suboptimal delivery of planned chemotherapy, including reduction or delay of planned doses of chemotherapy or chemotherapy discontinuation [26–29]. Chemotherapy dose delays and dose reductions or discontinuations may lead to poorer disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival [27, 28, 30–39]. In addition, FN places substantial economic burden on the healthcare system. In the US, the mean (median) hospitalization cost of FN management ranged from $18,880 to $22,086 ($8376 to $10,396) per episode [4, 23, 40].
Guidelines recommend prophylactic use of G-CSF in patients with a risk of FN greater than 20 % and suggest consideration of G-CSF prophylaxis when the risk is 10–20 % [41–43]. The strong, positive association observed between severity and duration of CIN with risk of infection in the current study provides a more scientific explanation for findings from prior randomized controlled trials, which reported that patients with cancer who received prophylactic G-CSF had significantly lower FN incidence and different ANC trajectories (earlier and shallower ANC nadir and more rapid recovery of ANC) compared with those who did not receive prophylactic G-CSF [14–16].
Our findings are consistent with those of previous studies. Bodey et al. [18] found that risk of infection was higher at lower concentrations of granulocytes (a term that typically includes neutrophils, basophils, and eosinophils) and the risk increased with longer duration (in weeks) of granulocytopenia among 52 leukemia patients receiving chemotherapy. In that study population, any episode of granulocytopenia, regardless of duration, had a 39 % chance of resulting in identified infection. Six weeks of severe granulocytopenia (<100/mm3) or 12 weeks of persistent granulocytopenia (<1000/mm3) resulted in 100 % identified infection [18]. However, the extent of myelosuppression experienced by patients with acute leukemia may be different in nature from that experienced by patients with nonmyeloid malignancies who are receiving chemotherapy. Another analysis of two randomized phase 3 trials comparing pegfilgrastim to filgrastim reported that risk of FN increased with duration (1, 2, 3, and ≥4 days) of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L), with an odds ratio of 2.28 per day increase in duration of severe neutropenia using logistic regression analysis [17]. In a previously conducted simulation study, the Cox proportional hazards model with time-updated exposure was shown to provide the least biased estimates compared to logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards model with constant exposure, when studying the relationship between a biomarker and a binary outcome when duration of that biomarker stays beyond a threshold that is the predictor of the event of interest [44]. Further, the use of FN (which includes neutropenia in its definition) as an outcome in a model with neutropenia as an exposure may overestimate the effect estimate.
In the current study, we focused on cancer patients receiving no G-CSF prophylaxis to enable us to get an accurate estimate of the relationship of interest. Moreover, the current study used more quantitative methods to estimate the effects of severity and duration of CIN on risk of infection compared to the previous studies. Specifically, we used a composite variable, AOC of ANC, to measure severity and duration of CIN simultaneously and quantified the risk of infection with each additional day increase of CIN at different severities. Further, we adjusted for potential confounding by controlling for a number of covariates in multivariate regression models to better estimate these relationships (Tables 3 and 4). Where possible, definitions for endpoints and all the covariates were standardized across different trials, and we also used standardized inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection into this pooled analysis.
Despite the demonstrated improvements we made to the study methodology, several limitations of the current study should be noted. First, patients enrolled in filgrastim trials conducted in the 1990s as well as those enrolled in more recent pegfilgrastim trials were included in this pooled analysis. Clinical practice patterns and data collection and reporting methods are likely to have changed over this time period. To account for the temporal changes, data source (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim trial) was adjusted for in the analysis. Another limitation is that the analysis relied on existing data collected in the original clinical trials, and there is a possibility of differences in definitions used for evaluated outcomes across studies. Wherever possible, we have standardized to common definitions for this study. Lastly, this study analyzed data from patients originally recruited for clinical trials in which individuals with poor performance status or serious medical illnesses were likely excluded from enrollment.
Conclusions
In this study, we observed that severity and duration of CIN increase the risk of infection in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Interventions that limit the extent and duration of CIN are of critical importance in preventing infection and further improving subsequent treatment outcomes in this patient population.
References
Kuhn JG (2002) Chemotherapy-associated hematopoietic toxicity. Am J Health Syst Pharm 59:S4–S7
Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH (2004) Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: risks, consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer 100:228–237
Amulic B, Cazalet C, Hayes GL et al (2012) Neutrophil function: from mechanisms to disease. Annu Rev Immunol 30:459–489
Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J et al (2006) Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer 106:2258–2266
Shayne M, Crawford J, Dale DC et al (2006) Predictors of reduced dose intensity in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 100:255–262
Weycker D, Edelsberg J, Kartashov A et al (2012) Risk and healthcare costs of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications in women with metastatic breast cancer. Chemotherapy 58:8–18
National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf. Accessed 23 February 2016
Rivera E, Haim Erder M, Fridman M et al (2003) First-cycle absolute neutrophil count can be used to improve chemotherapy-dose delivery and reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving adjuvant therapy: a validation study. Breast Cancer Res 5:R114–R120
Yang BB, Kido A (2011) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pegfilgrastim. Clin Pharmacokinet 50:295–306
Bhana N (2007) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: evidence based review. Curr Opin Oncol 19:328–335
Lyman GH, Shayne M (2007) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: finding the right indication. Curr Opin Oncol 19:299–307
NEUPOGEN® (filgrastim) prescribing information: Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen Inc.; 2016
Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) prescribing information: Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen Inc.; 2016
Brugger W, Bacon P, Lawrinson S et al (2009) Neutrophil recovery in elderly breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 72:265–269
Crawford J, Ozer H, Stoller R et al (1991) Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 325:164–170
Trillet-Lenoir V, Green J, Manegold C et al (1993) Recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factor reduces the infectious complications of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 29:319–324
Meza L, Baselga J, Holmes FA et al. (2002) Incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) is directly related to duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002;21 Abstract 2840
Bodey GP, Buckley M, Sathe YS et al (1966) Quantitative relationships between circulating leukocytes and infection in patients with acute leukemia. Ann Intern Med 64:328–340
Mosteller RD (1987) Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med 317:1098
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections, version I.2013. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?ReturnURL=http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/infections.pdf. Accessed 23 February 2016
Petrovic JS (2013) Advanced calculus: theory and practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London
Chao C, Page JH, Yang SJ et al (2014) History of chronic comorbidity and risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients not receiving G-CSF prophylaxis. Ann Oncol 25:1821–1829
Dulisse B, Li X, Gayle JA et al (2013) A retrospective study of the clinical and economic burden during hospitalizations among cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Med Econ 16:720–735
Pathak R, Giri S, Aryal MR et al (2015) Mortality, length of stay, and health care costs of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalizations among patients with breast cancer in the United States. Support Care Cancer 23:615–617
Weycker D, Barron R, Kartashov A et al (2014) Incidence, treatment, and consequences of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the inpatient and outpatient settings. J Oncol Pharm Pract 20:190–198
Crawford J, Dale DC, Kuderer NM et al (2008) Risk and timing of neutropenic events in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: the results of a prospective nationwide study of oncology practice. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 6:109–118
Lyman GH, Dale DC, Crawford J (2003) Incidence and predictors of low dose-intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: a nationwide study of community practices. J Clin Oncol 21:4524–4531
Lyman GH, Dale DC, Friedberg J et al (2004) Incidence and predictors of low chemotherapy dose-intensity in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol 22:4302–4311
Pettengell R, Schwenkglenks M, Leonard R et al (2008) Neutropenia occurrence and predictors of reduced chemotherapy delivery: results from the INC-EU Prospective Observational European Neutropenia Study. Support Care Cancer 16:1299–1309
Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A et al (1995) Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 332:901–906
Bosly A, Bron D, Van Hoof A et al (2008) Achievement of optimal average relative dose intensity and correlation with survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with CHOP. Ann Hematol 87:277–283
Budman DR, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT et al (1998) 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 90:1205–1211
Chirivella I, Bermejo B, Insa A et al (2009) Optimal delivery of anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting improves outcome of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114:479–484
Hanna RK, Poniewierski MS, Laskey RA et al (2013) Predictors of reduced relative dose intensity and its relationship to mortality in women receiving multi-agent chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 129:74–80
Havrilesky LJ, Hanna RK, Poniewierski MS et al. (2011) Relationship between relative dose intensity and mortality in women receiving combination chemotherapy for stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 29 (suppl):Abstract 5084
Kwak LW, Halpern J, Olshen RA et al (1990) Prognostic significance of actual dose intensity in diffuse large-cell lymphoma: results of a tree-structured survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 8:963–977
Lyman GH (2009) Impact of chemotherapy dose intensity on cancer patient outcomes. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 7:99–108
Osby E, Hagberg H, Kvaloy S et al (2003) 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 101:3840–3848
Wildiers H, Reiser M (2011) Relative dose intensity of chemotherapy and its impact on outcomes in patients with early breast cancer or aggressive lymphoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 77:221–240
Michels SL, Barron RL, Reynolds MW et al (2012) Costs associated with febrile neutropenia in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 30:809–823
Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH et al (2015) Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 33:3199–3212
Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA et al (2011) 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 47:8–32
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: myeloid growth factors, version 1.2013. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?ReturnURL=http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/myeloid_growth.pdf. Accessed 23 February 2016
Li Y, Page JH (2014) Strategies for modeling the relationship between a biomarker and a binary outcome. Paper presented at: 30th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology & Therapeutic Risk Management: October 2014; Taipei, Taiwan
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Martha Mutomba (on behalf of Amgen Inc.) for providing writing assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This study was supported by Amgen Inc.
Conflict of interest
Yanli Li, Zandra Klippel, Maureen Reiner, and John H. Page are employees of and own stock in Amgen Inc. Xiaolong Shih and Hong Wang are consultants and are funded by Amgen Inc.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the original studies. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 40 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Y., Klippel, Z., Shih, X. et al. Relationship between severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and risk of infection among patients with nonmyeloid malignancies. Support Care Cancer 24, 4377–4383 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3277-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3277-0