Neutrophil recovery in elderly breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy for breast cancer can cause neutropenia, increasing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and serious infections. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis has been explored to mitigate these risks. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the "Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development" using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing using G-CSF as primary prophylaxis in invasive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and FN incidence. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with sufficient data.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis, and five RCTs were meta-analyzed for FN incidence. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in FN incidence with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (risk difference [RD] = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.43, p = 0.04). Evidence for improvement in OS with G-CSF was inconclusive. Four RCTs suggested a tendency for increased pain with G-CSF, but statistical significance was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is strongly recommended for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN. While the impact on OS is unclear, the benefits of reducing FN are considered to outweigh the potential harm of increased pain.

Dose Modification of Etoposide plus Platinum in Elderly Patients with Extensive-Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) have a high risk of chemotherapy toxicity due to multiple comorbidities and poor performance status. Although dose modification is often used to avoid toxicity in elderly patients with ED-SCLC, there is little data on the effect of initial dose-reduced chemotherapy on survival outcomes.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

We retrospectively reviewed 100 elderly patients with ED-SCLC who received first-line etoposide plus platinum chemotherapy between January 2006 and December 2020.

RESULTS

The median age was 74 years. Eighty-nine patients (89%) had a history of smoking, and 38 (38%) had chronic lung disease. Thirty-four patients (34%) received dose-reduced etoposide plus platinum in the first cycle. The dose-reduced group had significantly higher age, lower body mass index, and poor ECOG PS. There were no significant differences in survival outcomes between the dose-reduced and full-dose chemotherapy [median overall survival (OS), 4.9 vs. 6.5 months, p=0.440; median progression free survival (PFS), 3.7 vs. 4.6 months, p=0.272]. In multivariate analyses, dose reduction in the first cycle (hazard ratio 0.519, 95% CI 0.269-1.000, p=0.050) was significantly associated with OS. Following subgroup analysis of 59 patients who received minimum four cycles, no significant differences in survival outcomes between the two groups (median OS, 10.9 vs. 9.4 months, p=0.817; median PFS, 6.3 vs. 6.5 months, p=0.902) was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The dose-reduced chemotherapy with first-line etoposide plus platinum had non-inferior survival outcomes compared to the full-dose chemotherapy in elderly patients with ED-SCLC.

A Phase I study to determine safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ANF-RHO™, a novel PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in healthy volunteers

Patients receiving pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) for the treatment of neutropenia can experience bone pain following the injections required to achieve effective neutrophil levels. The safety, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of ANF-RHO™, a novel pegylated granulocyte colony stimulating factor, were assessed in a randomized, controlled, double-blind Phase 1 clinical study in healthy volunteers. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of ANF-RHO over a range of 6 doses (5-50 μg/kg), placebo (saline), or the recommended clinical dose of pegfilgrastim administered at the labeled fixed 6 mg dosage (equivalent to 80-100 μg/kg). The primary outcome measure was safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included PK and PD effects on absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and number of CD34+ progenitor cells. Severity of bone pain was also assessed. In healthy volunteers, ANF-RHO was administered at ascending doses up to 50 μg/kg without significant adverse effects; appeared to be better (5 to 30 μg/kg) or equally well (50 μg/kg) tolerated, and had lower mean bone pain scores as compared to pegfilgrastim. ANF-RHO achieved CD34+ and ANC numbers at significantly lower doses, and had a significantly longer circulating half-life than pegfilgrastim. These results suggest that ANF-RHO can be provided less frequently, at a lower dose, and with fewer side effects. ANF-RHO had unique, prolonged PK/PD attributes as compared to marketed pegfilgrastim, suggesting that it may provide an improved clinical benefit in further clinical studies in patients with chemotherapy-induced or chronic idiopathic neutropenia.

Trajectory of absolute neutrophil counts in patients treated with pegfilgrastim on the day of chemotherapy versus the day after chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Risk of infection increases with severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). Pegfilgrastim is approved for use on the day after chemotherapy to reduce incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia (FN), in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this study, we compared severity and duration of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) suppression in patients who received pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy versus the next day.

METHODS

We combined individual patient data from four Amgen-sponsored clinical trials in which patients with cancer were randomized to receive pegfilgrastim either the same day as chemotherapy or the next day. Severity and duration of ANC suppression were calculated using area over the curve (AOC, the area over the ANC-time response curve and below a given clinical threshold). AOC of ANC and incidences of CIN and FN were compared by day of pegfilgrastim use.

RESULTS

The analysis included 95 same-day patients and 97 next-day patients. Despite similar ANC at baseline, ANC at nadir was higher among next-day patients than same-day patients. Mean AOC of ANC (cutoff 0.5 × 10(9)/L) among next-day patients was lower by 0.30 (95 % confidence interval: 0.16, 0.43) 10(9)/L × day than same-day patients in cycle 1. Next-day patients had lower incidences of CIN than same-day patients, but there were no significant differences in incidences of FN.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy had less severe and shorter suppression of ANC than patients who received pegfilgrastim the same day as chemotherapy.

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.

The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people

Background:

Although comorbidities are identified in routine oncology practice, intervention plans for the coexisting needs of older people receiving chemotherapy are rarely made. This study evaluates the impact of geriatrician-delivered comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) interventions on chemotherapy toxicity and tolerance for older people with cancer.

Methods:

Comparative study of two cohorts of older patients (aged 70+ years) undergoing chemotherapy in a London Hospital. The observational control group (N=70, October 2010–July 2012) received standard oncology care. The intervention group (N=65, September 2011–February 2013) underwent risk stratification using a patient-completed screening questionnaire and high-risk patients received CGA. Impact of CGA interventions on chemotherapy tolerance outcomes and grade 3+ toxicity rate were evaluated. Outcomes were adjusted for age, comorbidity, metastatic disease and initial dose reductions.

Results:

Intervention participants undergoing CGA received mean of 6.2±2.6 (range 0–15) CGA intervention plans each. They were more likely to complete cancer treatment as planned (odds ratio (OR) 4.14 (95% CI: 1.50–11.42), P=0.006) and fewer required treatment modifications (OR 0.34 (95% CI: 0.16–0.73), P=0.006). Overall grade 3+ toxicity rate was 43.8% in the intervention group and 52.9% in the control (P=0.292).

Conclusions:

Geriatrician-led CGA interventions were associated with improved chemotherapy tolerance. Standard oncology care should shift towards modifying coexisting conditions to optimise chemotherapy outcomes for older people.

Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

High-dose or dose-intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy often causes myelosuppression and severe neutropenia among cancer patients. Severe neutropenia accompanied by fever, named febrile neutropenia (FN), is the most serious manifestation of neutropenia usually requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. FN and neutropenia can lead to chemotherapy treatment delays or dose reductions, which potentially compromises the effectiveness of cancer treatment and prospects for a cure. Granulocyte-macrophage (GM) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are administered during chemotherapy in order to prevent or reduce the incidence or the duration of FN and neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in reducing the incidence and duration of FN, and all-cause and infection-related mortality during chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, International Health Technology Assessment, SOMED, AMED and BIOSIS up to 8 August 2011. We also searched three Chinese databases (VIP, CNKI, CBM), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and OpenGrey.eu up to August 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSFs (any dose) with placebo or no treatment in patients with breast cancer at any stage, at risk of developing FN while undergoing any type of chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Trial authors were contacted for further details when information was unclear.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs involving 2156 participants with different stages of breast cancer and chemotherapy regimens. The trials were carried out between 1995 and 2008 and judged as being at least at moderate risk of bias. The strength of the evidence was weak for the majority of outcomes, which was mostly because of the small numbers of evaluable patients, varying definitions, as well as unclear measurements of the trials' outcomes and uncertain influences of supportive treatments on them. In most trials, the chemotherapy regimens had a risk of FN that was below the threshold at which current guidelines recommend routine primary prophylaxis with CSFs. Using CSFs significantly reduced the proportion of patients with FN (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12) but there was substantial heterogeneity which can be explained by possible differential effects of G-CSFs and GM-CSFs and different definitions of FN. A significant reduction in early mortality was observed in CSF-treated patients compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.77; NNTB 79). This finding was based on 23 fatal events in 2143 patients; wherein 19 of these 23 events occurred in one study and 17 events were attributed to progression of the disease by the study authors. For infection-related mortality, there were no significant differences between CSF and control groups (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). In CSF-treated patients, the risk for hospitalization was significantly reduced (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.30; NNTB 13), as well as the use of intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; NNTB 18). The risks of severe neutropenia, infection or not maintaining the scheduled dose of chemotherapy did not differ between CSF-treated and control groups. CSFs frequently led to bone pain (RR 5.88; 95% CI 2.54 to 13.60; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 3) and injection-site reactions (RR 3.59; 95% CI 2.33 to 5.53; NNTH 3).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, CSFs have shown evidence of benefit in the prevention of FN. There is evidence, though less reliable, of a decrease of all-cause mortality during chemotherapy and a reduced need for hospital care. No reliable evidence was found for a reduction of infection-related mortality, a higher dose intensity of chemotherapy with CSFs or diminished rates of severe neutropenia and infections. The majority of adverse events reported from CSF use were bone pain and injection-site reactions but no conclusions could be drawn regarding late-term side effects.