Randomized trial comparing the tolerability of sargramostim (yeast-derived RhuGM-CSF) and filgrastim (bacteria-derived RhuG-CSF) in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

GM-CSF, G-CSF or no cytokine therapy with anti-GD2 immunotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma

Colony-stimulating factors have been shown to improve anti-disialoganglioside 2 (anti-GD2) monoclonal antibody response in high-risk neuroblastoma by enhancing antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). A substantial amount of research has focused on recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) as an adjuvant to anti-GD2 monoclonal antibodies. There may be a disparity in care among patients as access to GM-CSF therapy and anti-GD2 monoclonal antibodies is not uniform. Only select countries have approved these agents for use, and even with regulatory approvals, access to these agents can be complex and cost prohibitive. This comprehensive review summarizes clinical data regarding efficacy and safety of GM-CSF, recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or no cytokine in combination with anti-GD2 monoclonal antibodies (ie, dinutuximab, dinutuximab beta or naxitamab) for immunotherapy of patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. A substantial body of clinical data support the immunotherapy combination of anti-GD2 monoclonal antibodies and GM-CSF. In contrast, clinical data supporting the use of G-CSF are limited. No formal comparison between GM-CSF, G-CSF and no cytokine has been identified. The treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma with anti-GD2 therapy plus GM-CSF is well established. Suboptimal efficacy outcomes with G-CSF raise concerns about its suitability as an alternative to GM-CSF as an adjuvant in immunotherapy for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. While programs exist to facilitate obtaining GM-CSF and anti-GD2 monoclonal antibodies in regions where they are not commercially available, continued work is needed to ensure equitable therapeutic options are available globally.

Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor (rhu GM-CSF) as Adjuvant Therapy for Invasive Fungal Diseases

BACKGROUND

Sargramostim (yeast-derived, glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor [rhu GM-CSF]) augments innate and adaptive immune responses and accelerates hematopoietic recovery of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, considerably less is known about its efficacy as adjunctive immunotherapy against invasive fungal diseases (IFDs).

METHODS

The clinical courses of 15 patients with pediatric malignancies and IFDs treated adjunctively with sargramostim at a single institution were analyzed in a retrospective cohort review. Further, a systematic review of published reports of rhu GM-CSF for IFDs was also conducted.

RESULTS

Among 65 cases, 15 were newly described pediatric patients and 50 were previously published cases of IFDs treated with rhu GM-CSF. Among the newly reported pediatric patients, IFDs were caused by Candida spp., Trichosporon sp., and molds (Aspergillus spp., Rhizopus sp., Lichtheimia sp., and Scedosporium sp). Twelve (80%) were neutropenic at baseline, and 12 (80%) were refractory to antifungal therapy. Among 12 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 92% (8 [67%] complete responses, 3 [25%] partial responses, and 1 [8%] stable). Treatment is ongoing in the remaining 3 patients. Among 50 published cases (15 Candida spp., 13 Mucorales, 11 Aspergillus spp., 11 other organisms), 20 (40%) had baseline neutropenia and 36 (72%) were refractory to standard therapy before rhu GM-CSF administration. Consistent with responses in the newly reported patients, the overall response rate in the literature review was 82% (40 [80%] complete responses, 1 [2%] partial response, and 9 [18%] no response).

CONCLUSIONS

Sargramostim may be a potential adjunctive immunomodulator for selected patients with hematological malignancies and refractory IFDs.

Sargramostim (rhu GM-CSF) as Cancer Therapy (Systematic Review) and An Immunomodulator. A Drug Before Its Time?

BACKGROUND

Sargramostim [recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhu GM-CSF)] was approved by US FDA in 1991 to accelerate bone marrow recovery in diverse settings of bone marrow failure and is designated on the list of FDA Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs. Other important biological activities including accelerating tissue repair and modulating host immunity to infection and cancer via the innate and adaptive immune systems are reported in pre-clinical models but incompletely studied in humans.

OBJECTIVE

Assess safety and efficacy of sargramostim in cancer and other diverse experimental and clinical settings.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically reviewed PubMed, Cochrane and TRIP databases for clinical data on sargramostim in cancer. In a variety of settings, sargramostim after exposure to bone marrow-suppressing agents accelerated hematologic recovery resulting in fewer infections, less therapy-related toxicity and sometimes improved survival. As an immune modulator, sargramostim also enhanced anti-cancer responses in solid cancers when combined with conventional therapies, for example with immune checkpoint inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Sargramostim accelerates hematologic recovery in diverse clinical settings and enhances anti-cancer responses with a favorable safety profile. Uses other than in hematologic recovery are less-well studied; more data are needed on immune-enhancing benefits. We envision significantly expanded use of sargramostim in varied immune settings. Sargramostim has the potential to reverse the immune suppression associated with sepsis, trauma, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COVID-19. Further, sargramostim therapy has been promising in the adjuvant setting with vaccines and for anti-microbial-resistant infections and treating autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis and gastrointestinal, peripheral arterial and neuro-inflammatory diseases. It also may be useful as an adjuvant in anti-cancer immunotherapy.

A Medication Use Evaluation of Adverse Events Associated with Colony-Stimulating Factor Therapy

A retrospective medication use evaluation (MUE) was used to determine the comparative incidence of adverse events in patients treated with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs). CSFs are high-cost, high-volume medications in our practice setting, and the incidence of side effects is an important factor that influences our physicians when they choose a CSF. Data collection elements were selected by key pre-scribers, and the MUE was conducted under the authority of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. The medical records of 30 patients treated with sargramostim and 30 patients treated with filgrastim were reviewed by a pharmacist. The incidence and severity of adverse events and selected clinical outcomes were found to be similar in the two groups. It was concluded that differences in adverse event profiles should not be used to differentiate CSFs. The MUE results were used to educate physicians regarding the differences and similarities of CSFs and to encourage use of the preferred agent, sargramostim.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Growth factor use in medication-induced hematologic toxicity

Myelosuppression is a dose-limiting adverse effect with antineoplastic therapy and nonchemotherapy medications. Clinicians have data and guidelines to provide direction for the management of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in patients with malignancies. Clinical situations outside oncology extrapolate these data along with limited data sets for those patients who demonstrate myelosuppressive effects from medications that are not traditionally considered cytotoxic. Pharmacological treatments can be used to help ameliorate the myelosuppressive toxicities. Recombinant technology has provided growth factors to counteract or lessen the degree of toxicity from myelosuppressive medications including chemotherapy. Clinical strategies and future trends on how to mitigate medication-related myelosuppression are discussed.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines.

RESULTS

We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, and sargramostim prophylaxis for neutropenia-related hospitalization: two US retrospective claims analyses

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have compared the effectiveness of filgrastim (FIL), pegfilgrastim (PEG), and sargramostim (SAR) to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy (M-CT). Two large commercial database analyses were separately conducted to examine the incidence of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations associated with FIL, PEG, and SAR prophylaxis for patients receiving M-CT for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, or solid tumors.

METHODS

Separate retrospective US claims database analyses utilized patient data from January 1, 2004 to April 30, 2010 using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) and January 1, 2001 to August 31, 2009 using OptumInsight's (formerly Ingenix) database. Patients were ≥18 years old and treated with M-CT for NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and solid tumors. All identified M-CT cycles with prophylactic (first 5 days of cycle) FIL, PEG, or SAR were included in the analysis. Patterns of administration and incidence rates of all-cause and neutropenia-related hospitalization were examined on a per-cycle basis.

RESULTS

In total, 9330 and 8762 patients with cancer, representing 30,264 and 24,215 chemotherapy cycles (28,189 and 22,649 (PEG), 1669 and 1351 (FIL), 406 and 215 (SAR)) from the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight databases, respectively, were included in the separate database analyses. Both the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight analysis showed that SAR and FIL prophylaxis had a higher risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (SAR: OR = 3.48 [95%CI = 2.11, 5.74] and 2.81 [1.62, 4.87]; FIL: 1.78 [1.28, 2.48] and 2.36 [1.82, 3.06], respectively) and all-cause hospitalization (SAR: 2.18 [1.41, 3.36] and 2.41 [1.58, 3.68]; FIL:1.57 [1.25, 1.97] and 1.95 [1.60, 2.38], respectively) vs PEG.

LIMITATIONS

Medical claims do not contain information about chemotherapy dose, and hospitalizations were not validated against the patient's chart.

CONCLUSION

In this comparative effectiveness study, use of PEG was associated with a lower risk of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared to use of FIL or SAR prophylaxis.

Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim as prophylaxis against hospitalization for neutropenic complications in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim in preventing hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) during myelosuppressive chemotherapy has not been well characterized and is an important clinical question in oncology.

METHODS

This study used a retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data. Source population included patients with solid tumors receiving filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim during their first observed course of chemotherapy between July 2001 and June 2007. For each patient, every unique chemotherapy cycle during the course was identified, along with each cycle in which filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim was administered by the fifth day of the cycle (ie, as prophylaxis). Risks of hospitalization for neutropenic complications (broad definition: admission with a diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; narrow definition: admission with a diagnosis of neutropenia) and for any reason were examined on a cycle-specific basis during all the cycles in which colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis was administered. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for hospitalization were estimated.

RESULTS

Risk (unadjusted) of hospitalization for neutropenic complications (narrow definition) was 2.1% for filgrastim prophylaxis (n=8286), 1.1% for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (n=67,247), and 2.5% for sargramostim prophylaxis (n=1736). Corresponding risks of hospitalization based on the broad definition were 4.0%, 2.6%, and 5.1%. Risks of all-cause hospitalization were 7.9%, 5.3%, and 9.6%, respectively. Adjusted odds of hospitalization were significantly higher for filgrastim [OR (range across the 3 alternative measures of hospitalization): 1.58-1.79; P<0.001] and sargramostim (OR: 1.89-2.68; P<0.001) versus pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of hospitalization for neutropenic complications during cancer chemotherapy is lower with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis than with filgrastim or sargramostim prophylaxis.

Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) continues to represent a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and cost in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The reported rates of FN vary considerably among studies depending on the treatment regimen, delivered dose intensity, and patient population. The risk of initial FN appears to be highest during the first cycle of chemotherapy and is greatest in certain high-risk groups including elderly patients and those with various comorbidities. Febrile neutropenia continues to have considerable clinical, economic, and quality-of-life impact on affected patients. The risk of mortality associated with FN continues to be relatively high in patients with hematologic malignancies, patients presenting with comorbid illnesses, and patients with bacteremia, pneumonia, or other infection-related complications. The reduction in chemotherapy dose intensity that frequently follows an episode of FN may have considerable life-threatening impact on disease control in responsive and potentially curable malignancies. The economic burden of FN is substantial, with the greatest proportion of the cost associated with the relatively limited number of patients hospitalized for prolonged periods as a result of comorbidities or complications. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) may reduce the risk and cost associated with cancer treatment by reducing the probability of hospitalization with FN. Primary prophylaxis with the CSFs may be warranted in patients receiving intensive regimens or in those at greater risk because of age or comorbidities. Further study of various risk factors for FN should help identify patients at greatest risk and likely candidates for targeted use of the hematopoietic growth factors.

Comparison of hospitalization risk and associated costs among patients receiving sargramostim, filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Sargramostim is a granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). Unlike filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, which are granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), sargramostim activates a broader range of myeloid lineage-derived cells. Therefore, GM-CSF might reduce infection risk more than the G-CSFs. This study compared real-world infection-related hospitalization rates and costs in patients using G/GM-CSF for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

METHODS

This retrospective matched-cohort study analyzed nationally representative health insurance claims in the United States from 2000 through 2007. The sample population included patients who received chemotherapy and G/GM-CSF. G/GM-CSF treatment episodes began with the first administration of G/GM-CSF and ended when a subsequent administration was >28 days after a prior administration. Sargramostim patients were matched 1:1 with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim patients based on gender and birth year. Outcomes included infection-related hospitalization rates and the associated costs. Hospitalization rates were analyzed using univariate and multivariate Poisson methods; covariates included myelosuppressive agents received, tumor type, anemia, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 990 sargramostim-filgrastim and 982 sargramostim-pegfilgrastim matched pairs were analyzed. Cohorts were similar with regard to age, gender, and comorbid conditions. Several differences were observed with regard to tumor type, anemia, and chemotherapy, but no systematic trends were apparent. Sargramostim patients experienced a 56% lower risk of infection-related hospitalizations compared with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim patients. Infection-related hospitalization costs were 84% and 62% lower for sargramostim patients compared with patients treated with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with or at risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, these data indicated that use of sargramostim was associated with a reduced risk of infection-related hospitalization and lower associated costs compared with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim.

Dendritic cells: emerging roles in tumor immunotherapy

The purpose of this article is to examine the use of myeloid dendritic cells (DCs) as immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer. DCs can be stimulated either from circulating blood or bone marrow progenitor cells using cytokines, particularly granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) (e.g., sargramostim, Leukine). GM-CSF has been shown to promote maturation, mobilization, and antigen presentation of DCs in vivo or ex vivo as a therapeutic cancer vaccine. Once stimulated, DCs can present tumor antigen to naive T cells to initiate an immune response. In addition to myeloid-related DC stimulation, antitumor properties of GM-CSF include direct cytotoxicity, antiangiogenesis properties, and potential upregulation of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Oncology nurses need to be knowledgeable regarding new therapies. Using knowledge gained through reading professional journals and self-education, nurses can inform patients of new therapies, which may increase patients' hope.

Effect of Granulocyte-Monocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Therapy on Leukocyte Function and Clearance of Serious Infection in Nonneutropenic Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Impaired leukocyte function in patients with serious infections may increase mortality. Granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) broadly activates peripheral monocytes and neutrophils. We performed a clinical trial of GM-CSF in septic, hemodynamically stable patients to see whether GM-CSF treatment improved leukocyte function and mortality.

DESIGN

Randomized, unblinded, placebo-controlled, prospective study.

SETTING

A 600-bed academic tertiary care center with a 120-bed ICU census with a high proportion of immunocompromised, solid-organ transplant recipients.

PATIENTS

Forty adult patients with infections meeting the criteria for the systemic inflammatory response syndrome but without hemodynamic instability or shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with sepsis and a documented infection were randomized to a 72-h infusion of GM-CSF (125 microg/m2) or placebo.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

GM-CSF infusion caused the up-regulation of the beta2-integrin adhesion molecule CD11b and the appearance of the activated ("sticky" or "avid") form of the molecule on circulating neutrophils and monocytes. CD11b density and avidity increases in response to the administration of tumor necrosis factor-alpha were blunted prior to treatment in these patients with serious infection. GM-CSF partially repaired this blunted response on both monocytes and neutrophils. It also caused the down-regulation of the adhesion molecule L-selectin on neutrophils and the up-regulation of human leukocyte antigen on monocytes. These changes were consistent with a broad activation of the circulating leukocyte pool. Although mortality and organ failure scores were similar in both groups, infection resolved significantly more often in patients receiving GM-CSF.

CONCLUSIONS

GM-CSF infusion up-regulated the functional markers of inflammation on circulating neutrophils and monocytes and was associated with both the clinical and microbiological resolution of infection. There was no detectable exacerbation of sepsis-related organ failure or other deleterious side effects with the administration of this proinflammatory agent to patients with serious infections.

Effects of a Formulary Change from Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor to Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor on Outcomes in Patients Treated with Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects on efficacy and safety of a formulary change from granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF).

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Single-center academic institution.

PATIENTS

Fifty-six patients aged 18 years or older with breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who developed neutropenia within 4 weeks after treatment with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and who had been given five or more doses of CSF as primary or secondary prophylaxis from January 1995-March 2002. Twenty-nine patients treated before January 2000 were given G-CSF; after the formulary change in January 2000, 27 patients were primarily given GM-CSF.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary efficacy end point was time to an absolute neutrophil count of 1.5x10(3)/mm3 or greater after treatment with CSF. Second and third efficacy end points, respectively, were frequency of febrile neutropenia and effect of CSF treatment on schedule and dose intensity of subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Primary and secondary safety end points, respectively, were frequency of adverse events and use of resources used to manage these events. The time to neutrophil recovery was similar with G-CSF and GM-CSF. Febrile neutropenia was more common in the patients given GM-CSF. Chemotherapy dose delays also were more common in patients treated with GM-CSF, as was the frequency of fever. Use of resources (platelet and red blood cell transfusions, intravenous antibiotics, and hospitalizations) was greater in the patients treated with GM-CSF.

CONCLUSION

The formulary change to GM-CSF was associated with a higher frequency of febrile neutropenia, resultant chemotherapy dose delays, more adverse events, and greater use of resources to manage the adverse events. These results suggest that G-CSF and GM-CSF are not therapeutically equivalent, with G-CSF having a superior safety and efficacy profile for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic events.

Maitake beta-glucan MD-fraction enhances bone marrow colony formation and reduces doxorubicin toxicity in vitro

Previous studies have indicated that MD-fraction (MDF), in which the active component is beta 1,6-glucan with beta 1,3-branches, has anti-tumor activity as an oral agent and acts as an immune adjuvant. Since some other beta glucans appear to promote mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells, the effects of a beta glucan extract from the Maitake mushroom "MD-fraction" on hematopoietic stem cells were examined in a colony forming assay. Here we report for the first time that MDF has a dose response effect on mouse bone marrow cells (BMC) hematopoiesis in vitro. Using the Colony Forming Unit (CFU) assay to detect formation of granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM) colonies, and the XTT cytotoxicitiy assay to measure BMC viability, the data showed that the addition of MDF significantly enhanced the development of CFU-GM in a dose range of 50-100 microg/ml (p<0.004). The mechanism of action included significant increase of nonadherent BMC viability, which was observed at MDF doses of 12.5-100 microg/ml (p<0.005). In the presence of Doxorubicin (DOX), MDF promoted BMC viability and protected CFU-GM from DOX induced toxicity. In addition, MDF treatment promoted the recovery of CFU-GM colony formation after BMC were pretreated with DOX. These studies provided the first evidence that MDF acts directly in a dose dependent manner on hematopoietic BMC and enhances BMC growth and differentiation into colony forming cells.

Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Decrease Febrile Neutropenia After Chemotherapy in Children With Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

To determine whether prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) used in children with cancer reduce the rate of febrile neutropenia, hospitalization duration, documented infection rate, parenteral antibiotic duration, amphotericin B use, or infection-related mortality.

Methods

We included studies in this meta-analysis if their populations consisted of children, if there was randomization between CSFs and placebo or no therapy, if CSFs were administered prophylactically (before neutropenia or febrile neutropenia), and if chemotherapy treatments preceding CSFs and placebo or no therapy were identical. From 971 reviewed study articles, 16 were included.

Results

The mean rate of febrile neutropenia in the control arms was 57% (range, 39% to 100%). Using a random effects model, CSFs were associated with a reduction in febrile neutropenia, with a rate ratio of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P = .01), and a decrease in hospitalization length, with a weighted mean difference of −1.9 days (95% CI, −2.7 to −1.1 days; P < .00001). CSF use was also associated with reduction in documented infections (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.97; P = .02) and reduction in amphotericin B use (rate ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.87; P = .02). There was no difference in duration of parenteral antibiotic therapy (weighted mean difference, −4.3; 95% CI, −10.6 to 2.0 days; P = .2) or infection-related mortality (rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.34 to 3.06; P = .97).

Conclusion

CSFs were associated with a 20% reduction in febrile neutropenia and shorter duration of hospitalization; however, CSFs did not reduce infection-related mortality.

Molecular cloning and expression of gerbil granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor

Using a combination of cross species reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and 3' rapid amplification of cDNA ends techniques, we cloned the cDNA encoding gerbil granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). The open reading frame had 81% nucleotide identity with its mouse counterpart, while the mature protein had 80% homology with mature mouse GM-CSF. COS-7 cells transfected with gerbil GM-CSF cDNA secreted high levels of bioactive GM-CSF, as their supernatant stimulated gerbil bone-marrow cell proliferation and colony formation in semi-solid medium.

Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor: current practice and novel approaches

Endogenous myeloid colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) have demonstrated the ability to enhance the clinical management of immunosuppressed patients with cancer. These agents are associated with significant decreases in chemotherapy-associated infections, antibiotic use, length of hospital stays, and mortality. Two major endogenous recombinant myeloid CSFs currently are being manufactured. Granulocyte macrophage CSF (GM-CSF) (sargramostim, Leukine, Immunex Corporation, Seattle, WA) has broad activity in the proliferation and differentiation of myeloid lineage progenitor cells, whereas granulocyte CSF (filgrastim, Neupogen, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA) acts selectively on cells of the granulocyte lineage. Clinical trials suggest that GM-CSF has clinical benefits beyond enhancing neutrophil recovery, including shortening the duration of mucositis and diarrhea, stimulating dendritic cells, preventing infection, acting as an adjuvant vaccine agent, and facilitating antitumor activity.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in induction treatment of children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a randomized study of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology

PURPOSE

To determine whether granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; lenograstim) decreases the incidence of febrile neutropenia after induction courses in treatment of childhood non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive (G-CSF+) or not receive (G-CSF-) prophylactic G-CSF, 5 microg/kg/d, from day 7 until an absolute neutrophil count > or = 500/microL was sustained over 48 hours, after two consecutive induction courses of cyclophosphamide 1.5 or 3 g/m(2), vincristine 2 mg/m(2), prednisone 60 mg/m(2)/d x 5, doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2), high-dose methotrexate 3 or 8 g/m(2), and intrathecal injections (COPAD[M]) on protocols LMB89, LMT89, and HM91 of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight patients were assessable, 75 G-CSF+ and 73 G-CSF-. Although duration of neutropenia less than 500/microL was 3 days shorter in G-CSF+ patients (P = 10(-4)), incidence of febrile neutropenia (89% v. 93% in the first course, 88% v. 88% in the second course), durations of hospitalization and antimicrobial therapy, percentages of infections, mucositis, and transfusions were not significantly different. Although the percentage of G-CSF+ patients commencing the following course on day 21 was significantly higher (84% v 68% after the first and 57% v. 38% after the second course; P <.05), the median delay between the two courses was only 1 day less in G-CSF+ patients (median delay after first COPAD(M), 19 v. 20 days, P =.01; after second, 21 v. 22 days, P = not significant). Remission and survival rates were similar in both arms.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that G-CSF did not decrease treatment-related morbidity, nor increase the dose-intensity in children undergoing COPAD(M) induction chemotherapy for NHL.

Haemopoietic growth factors in paediatric oncology: a review of the literature

Recombinant haemopoietic growth factors (HGFs) are an attractive adjunct to reduce morbidity from chemotherapy regimens and their use has become widespread in paediatric oncology. Although patients receiving HGFs often have faster haematological recovery after intensive chemotherapy, this does not always translate into meaningful clinical benefits. This article reviews the clinical effectiveness of HGFs in a variety of different contexts. Most published studies have used granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) as prophylaxis to ameliorate the subsequent neutropenia following intensive chemotherapy. These 2 agents have also been used to mobilise peripheral blood stem cells for autologous transplantation. HGFs specific for anaemia and thrombocytopenia are currently in paediatric clinical trials and it is hoped that the proper context and administration strategy can be found to make their use clinically effective. This article also reviews data on toxicity, specifically focusing on differences between various formulations of growth factors. HGFs are expensive, and cost-benefit analyses reviewed in this article give an important perspective on the financial aspects of paediatric cancer care. Because HGFs do not benefit every child receiving chemotherapy and overuse increases costs and may result in unnecessary adverse effects, evidence-based guidelines for their rational use in paediatric oncology are proposed.

Colony-Stimulating Factors in Stem Cell Transplantation: Effect on Quality of Life

Health-related quality of life (QOL) is poorest during the immediate post-transplantation period, but the impact of medical interventions during this period has not been studied. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), which are used to minimize short-term negative outcomes, might be expected to improve QOL; however, little is published about their impact on QOL during this period. We conducted a MEDLINE search to identify studies reporting on outcomes of stem cell transplantation (SCT) affected by the CSFs, mainly sargramostim and filgrastim. End points studied were: mucositis, incidence and type of infection, duration of hospitalization, time to myeloid engraftment, and quantity and quality of harvested cells. To impute the impact of CSFs on QOL post-SCT, we also reviewed the association between QOL and CSF outcomes in other circumstances. Data suggest that both CSFs improve QOL in the early autologous or allogeneic post-bone marrow transplantation period. Poor QOL caused by infection and increased length of hospital stay is expected to be improved by sargramostim. Time to myeloid engraftment, when negatively affecting QOL, is expected to be improved with both CSFs; however, the time to myeloid engraftment is consistently shorter with filgrastim. Current prospective trials designed to study the effects of CSFs in the immediate post-SCT period should collect QOL data.

Comparative safety of filgrastim versus sargramostim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of adverse events with filgrastim versus sargramostim when given prophylactically to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Retrospective review with center crossover.

SETTING

Ten United States outpatient chemotherapy centers.

PATIENTS

Four hundred ninety patients treated for lung, breast, lymphatic system, or ovarian tumors.

INTERVENTION

Prophylactic use of filgrastim or sargramostim, with dosages at investigator discretion.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The frequency and severity of adverse events and the frequency of switching to the alternative CSF were assessed. There was no difference in infectious fever. Fever unexplained by infection was more common with sargramostim (7% vs 1%, p<0.001), as were fatigue, diarrhea, injection site reactions, other dermatologic disorders, and edema (all p<0.05). Skeletal pain was more frequent with filgrastim (p=0.06). Patients treated with sargramostim switched to the alternative agent more often (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adverse events were less frequent with filgrastim than with sargramostim, suggesting that quality of life and treatment costs also may differ.

Development of a recombinant growth factor and fusion protein: lessons from GM-CSF

Several colony stimulating factors (CSFs) and cytokines have been successfully used to mobilize hematopoietic cells during myeloablative therapy, bone marrow failure, and transplantation and to provide supportive treatment during sepsis. The use of yeast-derived recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage CSF (rhuGM-CSF) and its interleukin-3 fusion protein, PIXY321, provides an example of issues associated with development programs for recombinant hematopoietic growth factors. Species specificity of rhuGM-CSF, different bioactivity of homologous molecules in mice, and production in laboratory animals of antibodies to human proteins limit preclinical evaluation of such molecules. In clinical trials, rhuGM-CSF was efficacious and well tolerated. The derivation of the recombinant molecule, optimal dosing, scheduling, and confounding effects of concurrent disease and treatments are factors that influence efficacy, adverse responses, and immunogenicity reported in patients treated with CSFs. In comparisons of yeast-derived with Escherichia coli-derived rhuGM-CS, the reduced severity and frequency of all adverse events, preponderance of low-grade adverse events, and similarity of positive clinical response versus adverse events reported for granulocyte CSF support safety and efficacy of yeast-derived rhuGM-CSE Enhanced pharmacoeconomic evaluations are beginning to limit and redirect clinical applications in this class of biological agents.