Comparison and modelling of pegylated or unpegylated G-CSF schedules in CHOP-14 regimen of elderly patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma

The association between an anxiety disorder and cancer in medical history

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients can feel depression and anxiety any time after a cancer diagnosis. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) is an instrument for the assessment of anxiety. The main objective of this work was to compare general anxiety levels between cancer survivors and individuals without a history of cancer in a population-based study (LIFE-ADULT) with 10,000 participants.

METHODS

All participants (18-80 years) completed the GAD-7 and other psychological and medical questionnaires. A score of 10 or greater for GAD-7 (of total 21) indicates a probable generalized anxiety disorder.

RESULTS

954 participants reported a diagnosis of cancer in their medical history. In the multivariate analysis an anxiety disorder was associated with prior cancer diagnosis (OR: 1.8; 95% CI [1.4-2.4]), age -every additional year- (OR: 0.983; [0.976-0.991]), female gender (OR: 1.8; [1.5-2.2]) and low socioeconomic status (OR: 2.0; [1.7-2.5]) all p < 0.001. There were no significant associations between general anxiety and other comorbidities, such as myocardial infarction (OR: 1.0; p = 0.948), stroke (OR: 1.4; p = 0.237) or diabetes (OR: 1.0; p = 0.326). There was also no significant difference in anxiety disorder among cancer survivors regarding the time passed since the initial cancer diagnosis (OR: 1.1; [0.6-1.9], p = 0.804 comparing 5-10 years after a diagnosis of cancer vs. ≤5 years and OR: 0.6; [0.4-1.1], p = 0.107 comparing >10 vs. ≤5 years).

LIMITATIONS

This study has a cross-sectional character, therefore, causal conclusions cannot be drawn.

CONCLUSION

Cancer survivors may require screening for anxiety disorders and long-term professional psychosocial support.

A comparison of the effect of xinruibai versus filgrastim on hematopoietic reconstruction after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

To compare the effect of xinruibai (Pegfilgrastim) and filgrastim injections on white blood cell and platelet (PLT) recovery, adverse events, post-operative complications, and cost effectiveness after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Methods

Children who underwent allo-HSCT at our hospital from January 2014 to May 2017 due to thalassemia major, aplastic anemia, leukemia, and mucopolysaccharidosis were included. Among the children, 53 received xinruibai injections and 33 received filgrastim injections.

Results

There were no significant differences in the average time to neutrophil and platelet recovery, the incidence of post-operative complications after allo-HSCT, the number of red blood cell and PLT infusions, or the incidence of adverse events related to the injection between two groups (P >  0.05). The pain score was 3.06 (SD 0.41) for the xinruibai group and 25.18 (SD 6.22) for the filgrastim group, indicating significant differences between the two groups (P <  0.001). No difference was found in the hospitalization cost. The cost of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was 257.11 ± 61.87 Euro in the xinruibai group and 214.79 ± 0.00 Euro in the filgrastim group, showing significant difference (P <  0.001).

Conclusions

Xinruibai injection was more convenient, simple, effective, and safer than filgrastim.

Model-based optimization of G-CSF treatment during cytotoxic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although G-CSF is widely used to prevent or ameliorate leukopenia during cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still under debate and depends on many therapy parameters such as dosing and timing of cytotoxic drugs and G-CSF, G-CSF pharmaceuticals used and individual risk factors of patients.

METHODS

We integrate available biological knowledge and clinical data regarding cell kinetics of bone marrow granulopoiesis, the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of G-CSF applications (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) into a comprehensive model. The model explains leukocyte time courses of more than 70 therapy scenarios comprising 10 different cytotoxic drugs. It is applied to develop optimized G-CSF schedules for a variety of clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

Clinical trial results showed validity of model predictions regarding alternative G-CSF schedules. We propose modifications of G-CSF treatment for the chemotherapies 'BEACOPP escalated' (Hodgkin's disease), 'ETC' (breast cancer), and risk-adapted schedules for 'CHOP-14' (aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in elderly patients).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that we established a model of human granulopoiesis under chemotherapy which allows predictions of yet untested G-CSF schedules, comparisons between them, and optimization of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim treatment. As a general rule of thumb, G-CSF treatment should not be started too early and patients could profit from filgrastim treatment continued until the end of the chemotherapy cycle.

Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Methods

Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach.

Results

Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days’ filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days’ filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days’ filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim.

Conclusion

In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

Four doses of unpegylated versus one dose of pegylated filgrastim as supportive therapy in R-CHOP-14 for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

The primary objective of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the efficacy of a reduced regimen of only four doses of unpegylated filgrastim from day +8 to +11 per cycle with a standard once per cycle administration of pegylated filgrastim to maintain dose-intensity of R-CHOP-14 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone given every 14 d) in previously untreated elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We included 51 patients (median age 66 years, range 60-76). Median dose intensity did not differ between the group of 24 patients receiving four doses of unpegylated filgrastim of each cycle (87·5%) and the group of 27 patients receiving pegylated filgrastim once per cycle on day 2 (89·4%) (P = 0·9). There was also no difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as episodes of neutropenic fever and unplanned hospitalizations. Patient characteristics that negatively influenced dose intensity were reduced performance status, advanced stage disease and poor-risk International Prognostic Index, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 being the most significant factor. In conclusion, a limited support with 4 d of filgrastim appears to be equivalent to pegylated filgrastim administered once per cycle, and appears to be sufficient to maintain dose-intensity of the R-CHOP-14 regimen in elderly patients with DLBCL without risk factors.

Modelling chemotherapy effects on granulopoiesis

Background

Although the growth-factor G-CSF is widely used to prevent granulotoxic side effects of cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still unknown since treatment outcome depends on many parameters such as dosing and timing of chemotherapies, pharmaceutical derivative of G-CSF used and individual risk factors. We showed in the past that a pharmacokinetic and –dynamic model of G-CSF and human granulopoiesis can be used to predict the performance of yet untested G-CSF schedules. However, only a single chemotherapy was considered so far.

In the present paper, we propose a comprehensive model of chemotherapy toxicity and combine it with our cell kinetic model of granulopoiesis. Major assumptions are: proportionality of cell numbers and cell loss, delayed action of chemotherapy, drug, drug-dose and cell stage specific toxicities, no interaction of drugs and higher toxicity of drugs at the first time of application. Correspondingly, chemotherapies can be characterized by a set of toxicity parameters which can be estimated by fitting the predictions of our model to clinical time series data of patients under therapy. Data were either extracted from the literature or were received from cooperating clinical study groups.

Results

Model assumptions proved to be feasible in explaining granulotoxicity of 10 different chemotherapeutic drugs or drug-combinations applied in 33 different schedules with and without G-CSF. Risk groups of granulotoxicity were traced back to differences in toxicity parameters.

Conclusion

We established a comprehensive model of combined G-CSF and chemotherapy action in humans which allows us to predict and compare the outcome of alternative G-CSF schedules. We aim to apply the model in different clinical contexts to optimize and individualize G-CSF treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12918-014-0138-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A combined model of human erythropoiesis and granulopoiesis under growth factor and chemotherapy treatment

BACKGROUND

Haematotoxicity of conventional chemotherapies often results in delays of treatment or reduction of chemotherapy dose. To ameliorate these side-effects, patients are routinely treated with blood transfusions or haematopoietic growth factors such as erythropoietin (EPO) or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). For the latter ones, pharmaceutical derivatives are available, which differ in absorption kinetics, pharmacokinetic and -dynamic properties. Due to the complex interaction of cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and the stimulating effects of different growth factor derivatives, optimal treatment is a non-trivial task. In the past, we developed mathematical models of thrombopoiesis, granulopoiesis and erythropoiesis under chemotherapy and growth-factor applications which can be used to perform clinically relevant predictions regarding the feasibility of chemotherapy schedules and cytopenia prophylaxis with haematopoietic growth factors. However, interactions of lineages and growth-factors were ignored so far.

RESULTS

To close this gap, we constructed a hybrid model of human granulopoiesis and erythropoiesis under conventional chemotherapy, G-CSF and EPO applications. This was achieved by combining our single lineage models of human erythropoiesis and granulopoiesis with a common stem cell model. G-CSF effects on erythropoiesis were also implemented. Pharmacodynamic models are based on ordinary differential equations describing proliferation and maturation of haematopoietic cells. The system is regulated by feedback loops partly mediated by endogenous and exogenous EPO and G-CSF. Chemotherapy is modelled by depletion of cells. Unknown model parameters were determined by fitting the model predictions to time series data of blood counts and cytokine profiles. Data were extracted from literature or received from cooperating clinical study groups. Our model explains dynamics of mature blood cells and cytokines after growth-factor applications in healthy volunteers. Moreover, we modelled 15 different chemotherapeutic drugs by estimating their bone marrow toxicity. Taking into account different growth-factor schedules, this adds up to 33 different chemotherapy regimens explained by the model.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that we established a comprehensive biomathematical model to explain the dynamics of granulopoiesis and erythropoiesis under combined chemotherapy, G-CSF, and EPO applications. We demonstrate how it can be used to make predictions regarding haematotoxicity of yet untested chemotherapy and growth-factor schedules.