ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Gynecological Oncology
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1640418
This article is part of the Research TopicOptimizing Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Efficacy Toxicity and Brachytherapy IntegrationView all 10 articles
Pegylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) Enhances Radiotherapy Completion and Safety in Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis
Provisionally accepted
- First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
To evaluate the impact of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colonystimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) on radiotherapy completion rates and safety in cervical cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy.This retrospective study analyzed 60 cervical cancer patients treated at the researchers' hospital between October 2021 and October 2024. The patients were divided into two groups: the PEG-rhG-CSF group (n = 30), which received pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF), and the non-PEG-rhG-CSF group (n = 30), which received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF). Key outcomes, including radiotherapy completion time, hematological toxicity, and non-hematological adverse events, were compared between the two groups.The results demonstrated that 83.33% of patients in the PEG-rhG-CSF group completed radiotherapy within 8 weeks, compared to 51.72% in the non-PEG-rhG-CSF group. The time to bone marrow suppression was significantly longer in the PEG-rhG-CSF group (4.93 ± 0.22 weeks) than in the non-PEG-rhG-CSF group (4.07 ± 0.22 weeks). Additionally, the lowest white blood cell (WBC) count in the PEG-rhG-CSF group was 2.46 ± 0.13 × 10 9 /L, which was significantly higher than 2.04 ± 0.13 × 10 9 /L in the non-PEG-rhG-CSF group (P = 0.025). The incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia was significantly lower in the PEG-rhG-CSF group (16.67%) compared to the non-PEG-rhG-CSF group (56.67%) (P = 0.003). Furthermore, no febrile neutropenia (FN) cases were observed in the PEG-rhG-CSF group, whereas six cases occurred in the non-PEG-rhG-CSF group (P < 0.05). Non-hematologic adverse reactions were comparable between the two groups, and the bone pain associated with PEG-rhG-CSF was tolerable.The study demonstrates that PEG-rhG-CSF has significantly improved radiotherapy completion rates and reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 leukopenia and neutropenia in cervical cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy.-2 -Additionally, PEG-rhG-CSF has exhibited a favorable safety profile, with manageable adverse effects, making it a promising supportive treatment option in this setting.This study explores the application of PEG-rhG-CSF in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer. A retrospective analysis evaluates its effectiveness in helping patients' complete radiotherapy on time, reducing hematologic toxicity, and ensuring safety.
Keywords: PEG-rhG-CSF, cervical cancer, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, Radiotherapy Completion, Hematologic Toxicity
Received: 03 Jun 2025; Accepted: 20 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zhao, Zhai, Meng, Ren, Liu, Xing, Wen and Niu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Gaoli Niu, First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.