The effectiveness and safety of same-day versus next-day administration of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a systematic review

Adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and portal vein infusion chemotherapy followed by gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Although adjuvant gemcitabine (GEM) monotherapy improves the overall survival (OS) of patients with resected pancreatic cancer, its efficacy requires further improvement. This multicenter, phase II study investigated the efficacy of adjuvant portal vein infusion (PVI) chemotherapy followed by GEM therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

5-fluorouracil (250 mg/day) and heparin (2000 IU/day) PVI chemotherapy were combined with systemic administration of mitomycin C (4 mg; days 6, 13, 20, and 27) and cisplatin (10 mg; days 7, 14, 21, and 28) for 4 weeks (PI4W), followed by GEM (1000 mg/m2; days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks for 6 months). The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) and the secondary endpoints were OS and treatment completion.

RESULTS

Between November 2010 and August 2013, 53 patients who underwent complete resection were enrolled, including 30, 20, and 3 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies and distal and total pancreatectomies, respectively. In total, 51 (96.2%) patients underwent R0 resection, of whom 3, 2, 12, 35, 0, and 1 had stages IA, IB, IIA, IIB, III, and IV cancer, respectively, and 47 (88.7%) patients completed PI4W. The median RFS was 22.0 months (1-, 3-, 5, and 10 years RFS: 64.9%, 38.1%, 38.1%, and 38.1%, respectively), whereas the median OS was 32.0 months (1-, 3-, 5, and 10 years OS:86.6%, 47.2%, 44.4%, and 44.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with PI4W followed by GEM for 6 months after surgery may be beneficial in patients undergoing curative resection of pancreatic cancer.

[Neutropenia - when is GCSF support indicated?]

Many systemic treatments used in genitourinary oncology negatively affect haematopoiesis, thus leading to neutropenia. Neutropenic patients are vulnerable to bacterial, and other infections. Often fever is the only symptom in these patients. Neutropenic fever is a major threat for these patients, as it may lead to life-threatening therapy complications that significantly impair the patient's quality of life, Moreover, it may also worsen the prognosis due to therapy delays or necessary dose modifications. Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF), which can improve neutrophil granulocyte formation, are used both for supportive treatment in febrile neutropenia and for its prophylaxis. The correct indication for such GCSF support depends on the general risk of febrile neutropenia of the therapy used, as well as on individual patient factors and the treatment intent (palliative vs. curative). Based on the current recommendations both of the German and international guidelines, this article aims to provide an up-to-date and practice-oriented overview of the use of GCSF in uro-oncology.

Docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil with pegfilgrastim on day 3 as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

A high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) from neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) for esophageal cancer has been reported. The optimal timing of prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim remains to be elucidated. To evaluate the effect of pegfilgrastim administered on day 3, we conducted a feasibility study.

METHODS

Chemotherapy consisted of intravenous administration of docetaxel (70 mg/m2 per day) and cisplatin (70 mg/m2 per day) on day 1 and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (750 mg/m2 per day) on days 1-5. Pegfilgrastim was given as a single subcutaneous injection at a dose of 3.6 mg on day 3 during each treatment course. This regimen was repeated every 3 weeks for up to a maximum of three courses. Prophylactic antibiotics were not needed but were allowed to be given at the discretion of the physician. The primary endpoint was the incidence of FN.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were administered DCF in combination with pegfilgrastim on day 3. After the first course of DCF, 10 out of 26 patients (38.5%) experienced grade 4 neutropenia, and two patients (7.7%) experienced FN. Of the 14 patients who did not receive prophylactic antibiotics, four had grade 4 neutropenia, including two who developed FN. On the contrary, of the 12 patients who received prophylactic levofloxacin, six had grade 4 neutropenia, but no cases of FN were observed.

CONCLUSION

Administration of pegfilgrastim on day 3 was not sufficient to prevent FN due to DCF treatment, and prophylactic administration of both pegfilgrastim and antibiotics could be a solution.

Efficacy of same-day versus next-day administration of pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: A retrospective multi-site analysis

INTRODUCTION

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy can improve patient satisfaction through convenience and may increase the utilization of cost-effective biosimilars compared to next-day administration, but the effect on clinical outcomes with commonly used breast cancer regimens is unclear.

METHODS

This multi-site, retrospective cohort study included breast cancer patients age 18 years or older who received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) and pegfilgrastim between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2020. Pegfilgrastim was given on the same day as chemotherapy at one site and the day after chemotherapy at the other two sites. The primary endpoint compared the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with pegfilgrastim administration timing.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients were reviewed (146 same-day administration and 214 next-day administration). In the same-day group 36 patients (24.6%) developed FN compared to 25 patients (11.7%) in the next-day group (p = 0.002). Same-day administration also significantly increased the incidences of additional acute care visits (11.6% vs 2.8%, p = 0.0016), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (38.4% vs 13.6%, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy dose reductions (21.2% vs 6.1%, p < 0.0001), and antibiotic use (26.7% vs 12.6%, p = 0.001). Same-day administration did not significantly increase the rate of hospitalization (15% vs 11.2%, p = 0.36) and delay of next chemotherapy cycle by ≥1 day (8.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.57) due to neutropenic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as ddAC led to a significant increase in neutropenic complications. This study confirms the need to administer pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving ddAC.

Development and Validation of a Novel UHPLC-MS/MS Method for the Quantification of Plinabulin in Plasma and Its Application in a Pharmacokinetic Study with Leukopenic Rats

Plinabulin, a new antitumor drug developed from marine natural products that targets microtubules in cancer cells, is currently being tested in a phase III clinical study. Plinabulin has been clinically proven to be effective on leukopenia. However, to our knowledge, there are no reports investigating the pharmacokinetics of plinabulin in individuals with leukopenia and healthy individuals. In this study, we developed a rapid and sensitive UHPLC-MS/MS method for the detection of plinabulin for the first time. Using a novel cyclophosphamide-induced leukopenia model, we investigated the differences in the pharmacokinetic characteristics of plinabulin between rats with leukopenia and normal rats. Plinabulin and propranolol (IS) peaks were separated by gradient elution for a total run time of 5 min. The methodological validation showed a good accuracy (101.96-109.42%) and precision (RSD ≤ 5.37%) with the lower limit of quantification at 0.5 ng/mL. The recovery of plinabulin was between 91.99% and 109.75% (RSD ≤ 7.92%). The values of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-t) for leukopenia groups and control groups at doses of 0.5 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, and 3 mg/kg were 148.89 ± 78.74 h·μg/L and 121.75 ± 31.56 h·μg/L; 318.15 ± 40.00 h·μg/L and 272.06 ± 42.85 h·μg/L; and 1432.43 ± 197.47 h·μg/L and 1337.12 ± 193.56 h·μg/L; respectively. The half-lives (t1/2s) of plinabulin were 0.49-0.72 h for leukopenia groups and 0.39-0.70 h for control groups at three doses, and the clearance rates (CLs) of plinabulin were 2.13-3.87 L/h/kg for leukopenia groups and 2.29-4.23 L/h/kg for control groups. Pharmacokinetic results showed that there was no significant pharmacokinetic difference between the normal group and the leukopenia group. Based on the power model, plinabulin exhibits a lack of dose proportionality over the dose range of 0.5-3 mg/kg after intravenous administration. This study provides guidance for the development of plinabulin as a potential candidate for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced leukopenia.

Effect of concomitant use of G-CSF and myelosuppressive chemotherapy on bone marrow and peripheral granulocytes in a mouse model

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) stimulates bone marrow progenitor cell proliferation and enhances neutrophil production. Exogenous G-CSF administration is indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia management. However, there is a paucity of basic research examining the effects of the concomitant use of G-CSF and chemotherapy on myeloid cells in vivo. Whether concomitant G-CSF and chemotherapy adversely affect myeloid cell proliferation have not been determined. Herein, we examined the effects of the concomitant use of pegfilgrastim and 5-fluorouracil on myeloid cells and peripheral blood cells in mouse models. Balb/c mice were treated intraperitoneally with 5-fluorouracil (20 μg/g b.w.) or a vehicle as a control for 5 days, and pegfilgrastim was administered subcutaneously at 1 μg/g b.w. on day 3. As a result, we demonstrated that the concomitant use of pegfilgrastim suppressed the 5-fluorouracil-induced decrease of granulocytic cells in both bone marrow and peripheral blood in mice. To assess the clinical efficacy of early administration of pegfilgrastim during docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil therapy in patients with esophageal cancer, we retrospectively identified 42 consecutive patients treated with this regimen. The incidence of both febrile neutropenia and grade 4 neutropenia was significantly lower in patients who received pegfilgrastim than in those who did not receive it (P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively). These results suggest that the concomitant use of pegfilgrastim and chemotherapy, consisting of continuous infusions of 5-fluorouracil, improved chemotherapy-induced neutropenia without detrimental effects on proliferating myeloid granulocytic cells.

Retrospective evaluation of safety and effectiveness of same-day pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer

Aim: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and related outcomes after same-day pegfilgrastim in lung cancer. Materials & methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated electronic health records of patients with lung cancer treated between 2013-2018. The main end points were incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia after the first and across all chemotherapy cycles. Results: A total of 114 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim in 384 cycles. The incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia was 2.3 and 25% after the first chemotherapy cycle and 1.6 and 10.4% across all cycles, respectively. Conclusion: Same-day prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer may be a suitable option, owing to its low incidence of FN and related outcomes.

A prospective cohort study to evaluate the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector versus other options for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia: breast cancer subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer chemotherapy often carries a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN); guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), such as pegfilgrastim. Neulasta^® Onpro^® on-body injector (OBI) is a delivery device administering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after application.

METHODS

This prospective study examined patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy with a high risk of FN, receiving OBI ("OBI") or other options (other G-CSF or none; "other"). The primary endpoint was FN incidence; secondary endpoints included chemotherapy delivery, adherence (G-CSF in all cycles), compliance (G-CSF day after chemotherapy), and FN incidence in patients receiving curative or palliative treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1776 patients with breast cancer were enrolled (OBI, n = 1196; other, n = 580). Across all cycles, FN incidence was lower for OBI (4.4% [95% CI, 3.3-5.6%]) than other (7.4% [5.3-9.6%]). For curative treatment, the FN incidence across all cycles was lower for OBI (4.6% [3.4-5.8%]) than for other (7.1% [5.0-9.3%]). For palliative treatment (OBI, n = 33; other, n = 20), 3 patients (15%) in the other and none in the OBI group had FN. After adjusting for baseline covariates, FN incidence remained lower for OBI (4.6% [3.5-6.1%]) versus other (7.8% [5.7-10.5%]). Adherence was higher for OBI (93.8%) than for other G-CSF (69.8%), as was compliance (90.5 and 53.2%, respectively). Chemotherapy dose delays/reductions were similar for OBI (4.7%/32.3%, respectively) and other (4.7%/30.0%) groups.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim OBI was associated with a lower FN incidence in patients with breast cancer compared to other options for FN prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , NCT02178475, registered 30 June, 2014.

Preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil treatment with pegfilgrastim on day 7 for patients with esophageal cancer: A phase II study

AIMS

The docetaxel and cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (DCF) regimen is expected to be superior to cisplatin plus 5-FU for the preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer. However, a high risk of adverse effects, including febrile neutropenia (FN), has been reported. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DCF with prophylactic pegfilgrastim, we conducted a phase II study.

METHODS

The regimen consisted of intravenous administration of docetaxel (70 mg/m² per day) and cisplatin (70 mg/m² per day) on day 1 and a continuous infusion of 5-FU (750 mg/m² per day) on days 1-5. A single 3.6-mg dose of pegfilgrastim was given as a subcutaneous injection on day 7 of each cycle. This regimen was repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of three cycles. The primary endpoint was the grade-2/3 histopathological response rate.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven eligible patients were enrolled and received DCF. Thirty-four patients underwent esophagectomy. Two patients received chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy without surgery. One patient withdrew consent and ended his hospital visit. One patient received additional radiotherapy before surgery. Histopathological responses of grade 3, grade 2, grade 1b, and grade 1a were observed in two (5.4%), 14 (37.8%), 10 (27.0%), and seven (18.9%) patients, respectively, and the primary endpoint was met. Of the 37 eligible patients, 11 (29.7%) developed FN in the first cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the histopathological responses were as expected, DCF with prophylactic pegfilgrastim is considered to be effective as preoperative chemotherapy. However, the prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim on day 7 was insufficient to prevent FN.

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

Timing of Pegfilgrastim: Association with Febrile Neutropenia in a Pediatric Solid and CNS Tumor Population

Background: While recommended timing of pegfilgrastim administration is ≥24 h after chemotherapy, patient barriers to next day administration, available adult evidence, and pharmacokinetic data have led to earlier administration in some pediatric patients with solid and central nervous system tumors. The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes by timing of pegfilgrastim after chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective chart review examined timing of 932 pegfilgrastim administrations to 182 patients, 0-29 years of age. The primary outcome was febrile neutropenia (FN); the secondary outcome was neutropenic delays (ND) ≥7 days to next chemotherapy cycle. To account for multiple pegfilgrastim administrations per patient, a generalized mixed model was used with a logit link for the dichotomous outcomes (FN & ND), timing as the dichotomous independent variable, and random effect for patient. Results: FN occurred in 196 of 916 cycles (21.4%); and ND in 19 of 805 cycles (2.4%). The fixed effect of pegfilgrastim administration < or ≥24 h after chemotherapy was not significant, p = .50; however, earlier or later than 20 h was significant, p = .005. FN odds were significantly higher when pegfilgrastim was given <20 h (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.19-2.65) after chemotherapy, which may be attributable to differences in chemotherapy toxicity regardless of pegfilgrastim timing. Discussion: While attempts should be made to administer pegfilgrastim ≥24 h after chemotherapy, if barriers exist, modified timing based on individual patient characteristics should be considered. Prospective randomized trials are needed to identify lower risk patients for early pegfilgrastim administration.

Same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy

Aim: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia and related outcomes of prophylactic same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP)-like chemotherapy. Methods: Retrospective, real-world, single-institution study. Results: 93 patients received 460 cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy. The incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was 5 and 16.5%, respectively. In 401 cycles pegfilgrastim was administered same-day versus 12 cycles next-day. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 17 cycles versus 0 cycles (p = 1.00) and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in 65 cycles (16.2%) versus 1 cycle (16.7%; p = 1.00) with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim administration, respectively. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim may be safely administered on the same day as chemotherapy in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy.

Prophylaxis and treatment strategies for optimizing chemotherapy relative dose intensity

INTRODUCTION

A decrease in relative-dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes in solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The actual delivered chemotherapy dose received by patients can be influenced by dose reductions and treatment delays, often due to toxicities, most commonly chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN).

AREAS COVERED

We review seminal evidence and more recent studies that have shown an association between higher RDI and improved patient survival. A smaller number of studies has shown no association between RDI and outcomes. These differences may be due to study limitations, including low power, differences in patient and disease characteristics, or the chemotherapeutic regimen. We describe guidelines recommendations to prevent and treat CIN with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and describe novel approaches to prevent neutropenia that are being developed that may provide greater value and be associated with fewer adverse events than standard G-CSF options.

EXPERT OPINION

Maintaining RDI is important to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This can be achieved through the proper administration of G-CSF prophylaxis and treatment. Newer agents in development to treat and/or prevent CIN are entering regulatory review and may potentially change the treatment landscape for CIN in the future.

Safety and efficacy of administering reduced doses of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factors in patients treated with cisplatin and etoposide for small cell carcinoma: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to discuss the safety and efficacy of administering reduced doses (3 mg) of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) at approximately 24 h or up to three days following treatment with etoposide and cisplatin (EP).

METHODS

A total of 104 cycles from 31 patients were divided into a PEG-rhG-CSF prophylaxis group (PP-Group) and a control group (No-PP-Group). The PP-Group received a reduced dose of 3 mg of PEG-rhG-CSF within a minimum of 15 h and a maximum of 72 h following EP chemotherapy, while the rest did not receive any G-CSF prophylaxis (No-PP-Group). For both groups, complete blood counts, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), grade III or IV neutropenia, and the use of antibiotics to treat neutropenia were recorded.

RESULTS

There was statistically no significant difference in the incidence of FN (0% vs. 1.4%, p = 1), antibiotic use due to neutropenia (0% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.881), estimated lowest mean marginal (EM) platelet (106.56 × 10⁹ /L vs. 127.70 × 10⁹ /L, p = 0.056) and hemoglobin (110.48 g/L vs. 110.14 g/L, p = 0.906) levels between the two groups. However, when compared with the No-PP-group, the white blood cell count in the PP-group was significantly higher (EM means: 4.95 × 10⁹ /L vs. 2.80 × 10⁹ /L, p < 0.01), while the incidence of grade III or IV neutropenia was significantly lower (9.1% vs. 68.1%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of a low dose (3 mg) of PEG-rhG-CSF within approximately 24 h or up to three days following EP treatment is safe and effective at reducing the risk of neutropenia. These findings bring a more flexible administration interval between PEG-rhG-CSF and EP treatment.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2020

Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.

Development and content validation of the Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire for Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (SEQ-G-CSF)

BACKGROUND

Several options for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia are available to patients worldwide. We have developed a novel patient-reported outcome measure, the Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire for G-CSF (SEQ-G-CSF), to help understand patients' perspectives of and satisfaction with different G-CSF options.

RESULTS

Three oncology nurses and 40 adult oncology patients in the United States were enrolled and participated in focus group discussions to develop and refine the SEQ-G-CSF. Nurses had ≥ 5 years of experience treating oncology patients and were currently involved in the management of oncology patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis. The patients had breast cancer, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or prostate cancer (10 patients in each group) and were receiving G-CSF prophylaxis via injection or the on-body injector (OBI) device. The preliminary SEQ-G-CSF contained an item relevance questionnaire and three SEQ modules (sociodemographic, medical history, and G-CSF-related healthcare characteristics questionnaires). Twenty-one patients (53% of total sample size) discussed their experience and satisfaction with G-CSF. Their most common experiences were G-CSF effectiveness, convenience and benefits of the OBI, and relationships with healthcare providers. Side effects and having to undergo additional treatment were also reported. Satisfaction with aspects of G-CSF included the OBI and effectiveness of G-CSF treatment; dissatisfaction included inconvenience (having to return to the clinic the next day and administration of the injection) and the insurance approval process. The SEQ-G-CSF was finalized after three rounds of cognitive interviews and includes five domains related to general satisfaction (one item), treatment burden (four items), travel burden (two items), time burden (four items), and treatment compliance (two items).

CONCLUSIONS

The SEQ-G-CSF is a novel instrument that quantifies a patient's experience and satisfaction with different G-CSF options using 13 easy-to-understand items. This study provides evidence for the content validity of SEQ-G-CSF. Although further psychometric testing is required, the SEQ-G-CSF may be a useful addition to clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical practice.

Current management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in adults: key points and new challenges: Committee of Neoplastic Supportive-Care (CONS), China Anti-Cancer Association Committee of Clinical Chemotherapy, China Anti-Cancer Association

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) is a potentially fatal and common complication in myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The timing and grade of CIN may play prognostic and predictive roles in cancer therapy. CIN is associated with older age, poor functional and nutritional status, the presence of significant comorbidities, the type of cancer, previous chemotherapy cycles, the stage of the disease, specific chemotherapy regimens, and combined therapies. There are many key points and new challenges in the management of CIN in adults including: (1) Genetic risk factors to evaluate the patient's risk for CIN remain unclear. However, these risk factors urgently need to be identified. (2) Febrile neutropenia (FN) remains one of the most common reasons for oncological emergency. No consensus nomogram for FN risk assessment has been established. (3) Different assessment tools [e.g., Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score model, and other tools] have been suggested to help stratify the risk of complications in patients with FN. However, current tools have limitations. The CISNE score model is useful to support decision-making, especially for patients with stable FN. (4) There are still some challenges, including the benefits of granulocyte colony stimulating factor treatment and the optimal antibiotic regimen in emergency management of FN. In view of the current reports, our group discusses the key points, new challenges, and management of CIN.

Revisiting same day administration of pegfilgrastim in the age of biosimilars: A review of literature

Purpose

Since 2018, several pegfilgrastim biosimilars were approved, which may affect insurance reimbursement. Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim be administered the days following chemotherapy to prevent hematopoietic toxicity. To date, only the reference pegfilgrastim product has an available autoinjector-device. This has contributed to logistical issues in administering biosimilar agents per guideline recommendations. Administration on the same day as chemotherapy may be a potential alternative when logistical issues are present. This review will assess current evidence on this practice to inform clinical decisions. Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline for studies examining the administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Data summary: Several studies were identified, including a systematic review, retrospective reviews, and insurance claim data. Studies had significant limitations, and chemotherapy regimens and cancer types varied among studies. Studies showed inconsistent results in terms of incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. In studies with patients with head and neck, urothelial, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and prostate cancer, no difference in outcomes was detected or outcomes supported the feasibility of same-day administration. In patients with breast cancer, outcomes were worse with same-day administration. Outcomes were mixed in studies with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and various solid tumors.

Conclusion

Administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy may be safe and an acceptable alternative, if logistics prohibit a patient from receiving administration the days after chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider patient risk factors and prescribed chemotherapy regimens, along with available evidence when contemplating administration of same-day pegfilgrastim.

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim when given less than two weeks from dose-dense chemotherapy regimens

INTRODUCTION

In clinical practice, waiting 14 days between the administration of pegfilgrastim and subsequent chemotherapy cycle (as recommended by the prescribing information) is sometimes not feasible with multi-cycle dose-dense regimens. This study evaluated the practice related to the use of pegfilgrastim in oncology patients at a multi-hospital health system.

METHODS

Patients who received pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis following dose-dense chemotherapy scheduled every 14 days were included. The primary endpoint was the impact of <14 elapsed days between pegfilgrastim administration and next chemotherapy cycle on the change in mean absolute neutrophil counts (ANC). A generalized linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects for pegfilgrastim delivery method, elapsed days between pegfilgrastim and chemotherapy (fixed categorical effect for 12, 13, 14 days), and ANC at subsequent cycle was fitted to the change in ANC between chemotherapy cycles.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty four patients with breast cancer who received pegfilgrastim support for dose dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) qualified for the model. The mean age was 52 ± 12 years. Eighty-eight percent received pegfilgrastim on-body injector while 13% received pegfilgrastim injection. The mean number of elapsed days between pegfilgrastim and subsequent chemotherapy was 13 ± 0.5 days. The method of pegfilgrastim delivery and elapsed days between pegfilgrastim and chemotherapy administration had no significant effect on the change in ANC (p = 0.8663 and p = 0.8434 respectively); however, patient's age (p = 0.0125) had a significant effect on the change in ANC.

CONCLUSION

The study findings suggest safety and efficacy when chemotherapy is administered 12-14 days from pegfilgrastim.

Retrospective study evaluating the safety of administering pegfilgrastim on the final day of 5-fluorouracil continuous intravenous infusion

BACKGROUND

Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor used to prevent neutropenia, is not indicated for administration within 24 h of completion of chemotherapy. The safety of administering pegfilgrastim in gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy regimens containing continuous intravenous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FUCI) on the day of completion of 5-fluorouracil has not been adequately studied.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis of patients with a gastrointestinal malignancy receiving pegfilgrastim on the final day of 5-FUCI was conducted. The primary end point was to determine the incidence of grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia when pegfilgrastim was administered on the final day of 5-FUCI. The secondary endpoint was to determine rate of dose reductions and treatment delays.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were reviewed from January 2010 to May 2017. The most common cancers were colorectal (25%) and pancreatic (60%), with 77% of patients having late stage disease. The risk of a patient developing grade 3 neutropenia was 0.010 (95% CI 0.002-0.029) and grade 4 neutropenia was 0.007 (95% CI 0.001-0.024). The risk of febrile neutropenia was 0.007 (95% CI 0.001-0.024). The risks of treatment delay and treatment reduction were 0.013 (95% CI 0.004-0.034) and 0.010 (95% CI 0.002-0.029), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The low risk of grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, as well as dose delays and/or reduction suggests that pegfilgrastim can be administered on the final day of 5-FUCI. Limitations of this study were that it was retrospective in nature and was conducted at a single institution.

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

The optimum granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment for cancer patients after being treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of 11 G-CSF drugs on patients after chemotherapy. A total of 73 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) containing 15,124 cancer patients were included for the final network meta-analysis. Compared with pegfilgrastim, there were a higher risk with filgrastim for incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) (OR [95% CI]: 1.63 [1.07, 2.46]), and a higher risk with short-acting G-CSF (S-G-CSF) biosimilar and lenograstim for incidence of bone pain (BP) (OR [95% CI]: 6.45 [1.10, 65.73], 5.12 [1.14, 26.12], respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were best G-CSF drugs in reducing FN (cumulative probabilities: 58%, 15%, 11%, respectively). S-G-CSF biosimilar, empegfilgrastim, and long-acting G-CSF (L-G-CSF) biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing severe neutropenia (SN) (cumulative probabilities: 21%, 20%, 15%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, balugrastim, lipegfilgrastim and L-G-CSF biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing BP (cumulative probabilities: 20%, 14%, 8%, 8%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim might be the most appreciate G-CSF drugs with both good efficacy and tolerability when treating cancer patients after cytotoxic chemotherapy.

The prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled study

Objective

This study explored the prophylactic effects of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for febrile neutropenia (FN) in newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Methods

Patients were randomised into a study group (long-acting G-CSF for all chemotherapy cycles) and a control group (short-acting G-CSF for first cycle and treatment per physician discretion for subsequent cycles) at a ratio of 1:2. The incidences of FN and myelosuppression and the number of clinical visits, medication doses, complete blood count (CBC) tests and adverse events were compared between the two groups. A regression model was used to determine the risk factors for FN.

Results

From 30 November 2018 to 1 April 2019, 84 cases were included in the final analysis; there were 24 (28.6%) and 60 (71.4%) patients in the study and control groups, respectively, and 605 chemotherapy cycles. The study group or chemotherapy cycles utilising long-acting G-CSF had significantly fewer utilisations and doses of short-acting G-CSF; clinical visits; CBC tests; and incidences of FN and myelosuppression; and less G-CSF-associated pain. The utilisation of G-CSF was the only independent factor for FN in a binary regression model.

Conclusion

Long-acting G-CSF could effectively reduce the incidences of FN and myelosuppression and had mild adverse effects in newly diagnosed patients with EOC receiving chemotherapy.

Trial registration number

NCT03740464.

EFFICACY OF GRANULOCYTE COLONY-STIMULATING FACTOR AND ENTEROSORPTION IN MELPHALAN-INDUCED BONE MARROW SUPPRESSION IN GUERIN CARCINOMA GRAFTED RATS

Background. Side effects of antineoplastic agents (especially leukopenia and neutropenia) could be the main limiting factors for efficient treatment. Objective. The research is aimed at the study of myeloprotective capability of biosimilars of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granular carbon oral adsorbent C2 in melphalan-induced bone marrow suppression in Guerin carcinoma-grafted rats. Methods. Melphalan at the dose of 5.5 mg/kg was used to promote bone marrow suppression in the Guerin carcinoma grafted rats. To fight myelosuppression, we used filgrastim and its analogue, designed and produced by IEPOR, a recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (r-GCSF). Carbon granulated enterosorbent C2 was used for enteral sorption therapy (bulk density γ=0.18 g/cm3, diameter of granules 0.15-0.25 mm, BET pore surface – 2162 m2/g). All rats were sacrificed on the 17th day after carcinoma cells inoculation or on the 8th day after Melphalan injection. Results. Alkylating cytostatic agent caused severe leukopenia (by 95.7%), neutropenia (by 73.9%), and thrombocytopenia (by 84.9%) in the experimental rats. Mortality rate was 57%. Filgrastim and enterosorption with carbon oral adsorbent C2 increased the studied indices, but the most prominent results were observed when combination of both factors was used. Studied means did not affect the anti-tumor efficacy of Melphalan alone and in combination. Conclusions. Our results are perspective for further investigation of the efficacy of the combination of carbon oral adsorbents and hematopoietic cytokines in cases of ameliorate anti-cancer chemotherapy side effects, and its implementation into clinics.

Risks and consequences of travel burden on prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration and incidence of febrile neutropenia in an aged Medicare population

OBJECTIVE

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This study examines the impact patient travel burden has on administration of prophylactic G-CSFs and the subsequent impact on FN incidence.

METHODS

Medicare claims data were used to identify a cohort of beneficiaries age 65+ with non-myeloid cancers at high risk for FN between January 2012 and December 2014. Driving distance and time were calculated from patient residence ZIP code to the location of G-CSF and/or chemotherapy administration. Regression models were used to estimate the odds of G-CSF prophylaxis relative to patient driving distance and time, and odds of FN incidence relative to timing of G-CSF administration (optimal [days 2-4 after chemotherapy], sub-optimal [same day], or none).

RESULTS

The 52,389 study patients had a mean age of 73.5 years, and were 82% female and 89% white race; 49% had female breast cancer, 12% lung cancer, 15% ovarian cancer, and 24% non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Of these high FN risk patients, 69% had at least one prophylactic G-CSF administration within at least one chemotherapy cycle. The percentage of patients receiving prophylactic G-CSFs in the first cycle was 56%. Median travel time was slightly longer for patients who did not receive G-CSFs and patients receiving short-acting vs long-acting G-CSFs. The odds of receiving no G-CSFs were 26-52% higher (depending on cancer type) for patients with a >80-min one-way travel time, compared to patients traveling <20-min. Concurrently, the odds of FN (using a "narrow" definition) were 18-93% higher for patients who did not receive G-CSFs in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Travel burden, linked to clinic visits for G-CSF administration following myelosuppressive chemotherapy, is associated with sub-optimal use of G-CSF prophylaxis, which may result in a higher incidence of FN.

Assessment of Neutrophil Chemotaxis Upon G-CSF Treatment of Healthy Stem Cell Donors and in Allogeneic Transplant Recipients

Neutrophils are crucial for the human innate immunity and constitute the majority of leukocytes in circulation. Thus, blood neutrophil counts serve as a measure for the immune system's functionality. Hematological patients often have low neutrophil counts due to disease or chemotherapy. To increase neutrophil counts and thereby preventing infections in high-risk patients, recombinant G-CSF is widely used as adjunct therapy to stimulate the maturation of neutrophils. In addition, G-CSF is utilized to recruit stem cells (SCs) into the peripheral blood of SC donors. Still, the actual functionality of neutrophils resulting from G-CSF treatment remains insufficiently understood. We tested the ex vivo functionality of neutrophils isolated from blood of G-CSF-treated healthy SC donors. We quantified chemotaxis, oxidative burst, and phagocytosis before and after treatment and detected significantly reduced chemotactic activity upon G-CSF treatment. Similarly, in vitro treatment of previously untreated neutrophils with G-CSF led to reduced chemotactic activity. In addition, we revealed that this effect persists in the allogeneic SC recipients up to 4 weeks after neutrophil engraftment. Our data indicates that neutrophil quantity, as a sole measure of immunocompetence in high-risk patients should be considered cautiously as neutrophil functionality might be affected by the primary treatment.

Travel burden associated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration in a Medicare aged population: a geospatial analysis

OBJECTIVE

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is recommended for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). G-CSFs should be administered starting the day after chemotherapy, necessitating return trips to the oncology clinic at the end of each cycle. We examined the travel burden related to prophylactic G-CSF injections after chemotherapy in the US.

METHODS

We used 2012-2014 Medicare claims data to identify a national cohort of beneficiaries age 65+ with non-myeloid cancers who received both chemotherapy and prophylactic G-CSFs. Patient travel origin was based on residence ZIP code. Oncologist practice locations and hospital addresses were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare and Hospital Compare websites and geocoded using the Google Maps Application Programming Interface (API). Driving distance and time to the care site from each patient ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) were calculated using Open Street Maps road networks. Geographic and socio-economic characteristics of each ZCTA from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey were used to stratify and analyze travel estimates.

RESULTS

The mean one-way driving distance to the G-CSF provider was 23.8 (SD 30.1) miles and the mean one-way driving time was 33.3 (SD 37.8) minutes. When stratified by population density, the mean one-way travel time varied from 12.1 (SD 10.1) minutes in Very Dense Urban areas to 76.7 (SD 72.1) minutes in Super Rural areas. About 48% of patients had one-way travel times of <20 minutes, but 19% of patients traveled ≥50 minutes one way for G-CSF prophylaxis. Patients in areas with above average concentrations of aged, poor or disabled residents were more likely to experience longer travel.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of G-CSF therapy after chemotherapy can present a significant travel burden for cancer patients. Technological improvements in the form and methods of drug delivery for G-CSFs might significantly reduce this travel burden.

Predictive factors in patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis focusing on RDI using ordered logistic regression analysis

Although pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is expected to maintain the relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy and improve safety, information is limited. However, the optimal selection of patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is an important issue from a medical economics viewpoint. Therefore, this retrospective study identified factors that could predict these eligible patients to maintain the RDI. The participants included 166 cancer patients undergoing pegfilgrastim prophylaxis combined with chemotherapy in our outpatient chemotherapy center between March 2015 and April 2017. Variables were extracted from clinical records for regression analysis of factors related to maintenance of the RDI. RDI was classified into four categories: 100% = 0, 85% or < 100% = 1, 60% or < 85% = 2, and < 60% = 3. Multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors in patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis to maintain the RDI. Threshold measures were examined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis curve. Age [odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.11; P < 0.0001], anemia (grade) (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.10-2.84; P = 0.0184), and administration 24-72 h after chemotherapy (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89; P = 0.0224) were factors that significantly correlated with RDI maintenance. ROC curve analysis of the group that failed to maintain the RDI indicated that the threshold for age was 70 years and above, with a sensitivity of 60.0% and specificity of 80.2% (area under the curve: 0.74). In conclusion, younger age, anemia (less), and administration of pegfilgrastim 24-72 h after chemotherapy were significant factors for RDI maintenance.

US oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths from chemoradiation mucositis and antimucositis therapy benefits

Approximate oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths associated with mucositis and identify health economic benefits of antimucositis therapies. Review the literature relevant to the clinical experience of mucositis by pathophysiology, incidence, duration, costs and deaths. Use US insurance actuarial and epidemiology on cancer to generalize an oncology-wide impact of toxic mucositis. Toxic mucositis causes oropharyngoesophageal ulcerations, chemo-induced nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Acutely, it lasts 102 days/six cycles of chemotherapy, 60 days in human stem-cell transplantation patients and 70-84 days in head and neck cancer patients at annual costs of US$13.23 billion/522,166 treated patients (US$20,892/erosive-type mucositis patient, US$25,337/physiologic mucositis patient) and 46,699 deaths. Using antimucositis therapies prior to 2013 provided fractional benefits at high costs. By completely preventing and rapidly reversing mucositis, high-potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate promises superior health economic benefits.

Polymer therapeutics at a crossroads? Finding the path for improved translation in the twenty-first century

Despite the relatively small early investment, first generation 'polymer therapeutics' have been remarkably successful with more than 25 products licenced for human use as polymeric drugs, sequestrants, conjugates, and as an imaging agent. Many exhibit both clinical and commercial success with new concepts already in clinical trials. Nevertheless after four decades of evolution, this field is arriving at an important crossroads. Over the last decade, the landscape has changed rapidly. There are an increasing number of failed clinical trials, the number of 'copy' and 'generic' products is growing (danger of ignoring the biological rationale for design and suppression of innovation), potential drawbacks of PEG are becoming more evident, and the 'nanomedicine' boom has brought danger of loss of scientific focus/hype. Grasping opportunities provided by advances in understanding of the patho-physiology and molecular basis of diseases, new polymer/conjugate synthetic and analytical methods, as well as the large database of clinical experience will surely ensure a successful future for innovative polymer therapeutics. Progress will, however, be in jeopardy if polymer safety is overlooked in respect of the specific route of administration/clinical use, poorly characterised materials/formulations are used to define biological or early clinical properties, and if clinical trial protocols fail to select patients most likely to benefit from these macromolecular therapeutics. Opportunities to improve clinical trial design for polymer-anticancer drug conjugates are discussed. This short personal perspective summarises some of the important challenges facing polymer therapeutics in R&D today, and future opportunities to improve successful translation.