Reporting of myelotoxicity associated with emerging regimens for the treatment of selected solid tumors

A comparison of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy (RECOVER): A Phase 3 study

Eflapegrastim (Rolontis^®) is a novel, long‐acting hematopoietic growth factor consisting of a recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (rhG‐CSF) analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. We report results from a second pivotal, randomized, open‐label, Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia. Patients with Stage I to IIIA early‐stage breast cancer (ESBC) were randomized 1:1 to fixed‐dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G‐CSF) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg G‐CSF) administered one day after standard docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) therapy for four cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (NI) of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; Grade 4) in Cycle 1. A total of 237 eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either eflapegrastim (n = 118) or pegfilgrastim (n = 119). Cycle 1 severe neutropenia was observed in 20.3% (n = 24) of patients receiving eflapegrastim and 23.5% (n = 28) receiving pegfilgrastim. The DSN of eflapegrastim in Cycle 1 was noninferior to pegfilgrastim with a mean difference of −0.074 days (NI P‐value < .0001). Noninferiority was maintained throughout the four treatment cycles (P < .0001 in all cycles). Other efficacy endpoints results were comparable between treatment arms, and adverse events, irrespective of causality and grade, were comparable between treatment arms. The results demonstrate noninferior efficacy and comparable safety for eflapegrastim, at a lower G‐CSF dose, vs pegfilgrastim. The potential for the increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study.

Eflapegrastim, a Long-Acting Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor for the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: Results of a Phase III Trial

Background

Eflapegrastim, a novel, long‐acting recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (rhG‐CSF), consists of a rhG‐CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open‐label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia.

Materials and Methods

Patients with early‐stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed‐dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G‐CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G‐CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1.

Results

Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n = 196; pegfilgrastim, n = 210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% (n = 31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% (n = 51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% (p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (−0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority (p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim (p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G‐CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN.

Implications for Practice

Chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.

Myelosuppression, particularly neutropenia, has presented a major challenge in cancer treatment since the introduction of cytotoxic chemotherapy. This article reports the results of a phase III trial that compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia.

Patterns of Anthracycline-Based Chemotherapy-Induced Adverse Drug Reactions and Their Impact on Relative Dose Intensity among Women with Breast Cancer in Ethiopia: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The breast cancer chemotherapy leads to diverse aspects of noxious or unintended adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that cause the relative dose intensity (RDI) reduced to below optimal (i.e., if the percentage of actual dose received per unit time divided by planned dose per unit time is less than 85%). Hence, this prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate chemotherapy-induced ADRs and their impact on relative dose intensity among women with breast cancer in Ethiopia.

METHODS

The study was conducted with a cohort of 146 patients from January 1 to September 30, 2017, Gregorian Calendar (GC) at the only nationwide oncology center, Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The ADRs of the chemotherapy were collected using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) (version 4.03). The patients were personally interviewed for subjective toxicities, and laboratory results and supportive measures were recorded at each cycle. SPSS version 22 was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Grade 3 neutropenia (23 (15.8%)) was the most frequently reported ADR among grade 3 hematological toxicity on cycle 4. However, overall grade fatigue (136 (93.2%)) and grade 3 nausea (31 (21.2%)) were the most frequently reported nonhematological toxicities on cycle 1. The majority of ADRs were reported during the first four cycles except for peripheral neuropathy. Oral antibiotics and G-CSF use (17 (11.6%)) and treatment delay (31 (21.2%)) were frequently reported on cycle 3. Overall, 61 (41.8%) and 42 (28.8%) of study participants experienced dose delay and used G-CSF, respectively, at least once during their enrollment. Of the 933 interventions observed, 95 (10%) cycles were delayed due to toxicities in which neutropenia attributed to the delay of 89 cycles. Forty-four (30.1%) of the patients received overall RDI < 85%. Pretreatment hematological counts were significant predictors (P < 0.05) for the incidence of first cycle hematological toxicities such as neutropenia, anemia, and leukopenia and nonhematological toxicities like vomiting.

CONCLUSION

Ethiopian women with breast cancer on anthracycline-based AC and AC-T chemotherapy predominantly experienced grade 1 to 3 hematological and nonhematological ADRs, particularly during the first four cycles. Neutropenia was the only toxicity that led to RDI < 85%. Thus, enhancing the utilization of G-CSF and other supportive measures will improve RDI to above 85%.

A multicenter prospective study of 515 febrile neutropenia episodes in Argentina during a 5-year period

For better management of patients with febrile neutropenia, our study investigated the epidemiologic, microbiologic, and clinical characteristics of adult inpatients with febrile neutropenia and their mortality-associated factors. To this end, we carried out a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 28 Argentinian hospitals between 2007 and 2012. We included 515 episodes of febrile neutropenia from 346 patients, median age 49 years. Neutropenia followed chemotherapy in 77% of cases, half of the cases due to hematological malignancies. Most episodes were classified as high-risk according to MASCC criteria, and 53.6% of patients were already hospitalized at the onset of febrile neutropenia. Bloodstream infections were detected in 14% episodes; whereas an infectious source of fever was identified in 80% of cases. Mortality rate achieved to 14.95%. The binary regression analysis showed that persistence of fever at day 7, or neutropenia at day 14, dehydration and tachycardia at the onset of febrile neutropenia as well as prior infections were significantly associated with mortality. In addition to expanding our current knowledge on the features of adult patients with febrile neutropenia, present findings provide useful information for better management of them in Argentina, given the appropriate representativeness of centers participating in the study.

Incidence of neutropenia and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in multiple myeloma: is current clinical practice adequate?

Although immunomodulatory drugs, alkylating agents, corticosteroids, protease inhibitors, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies improve multiple myeloma outcomes, treatment burden is still an issue. Neutropenia is a known complication of cytotoxic cancer therapy and is often associated with infections; it is an important consideration in myeloma given the fact that patients often have a weakened immune system. The risk of febrile neutropenia increases with severe and persisting neutropenia. Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are commonly used to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. Here, we review the risk and management of neutropenia associated with new and commonly used anti-myeloma agents. Few papers report the use of G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma receiving anti-cancer treatments, and fewer describe whether G-CSF was beneficial. None of the identified studies reported G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the need for G-CSF prophylaxis in multiple myeloma. Prophylaxis may be particularly useful in patients at high risk of prolonged severe neutropenia.

Attitudes of physicians toward assessing risk and using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy associated with an intermediate risk of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially fatal complication of chemotherapy. This prospective, observational study describes physicians' approaches toward assessing FN risk in patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate (10-20 %) FN risk. In the baseline investigator assessment, physicians selected factors considered important when assessing overall FN risk and deciding on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (PP). Physicians then completed patient assessments using the same lists of factors. The final FN risk scores and whether G-CSF PP was planned were reported. The final analysis included 165 physicians and 944 patients. The most frequently considered factor in both assessments was chemotherapy agents in the backbone (88 % of investigator and 93 % of patient assessments). History of FN (83 %), baseline laboratory values (76 %) and age (73 %) were commonly selected at baseline, whereas tumor type (72 %), guidelines (62 %) and tumor stage (43 %) were selected most during patient assessments. Median investigator-reported FN risk threshold for G-CSF PP was 20 % (range 10-85 %). G-CSF PP was planned in 82 % of patients with an FN risk at or above this threshold; therefore, almost one-fifth of qualifying patients would not receive G-CSF PP. Physicians generally follow guidelines, but also consider individual patient characteristics when assessing FN risk and deciding on G-CSF PP. A standardized FN risk assessment may optimize the use of G-CSF PP, which may minimize the incidence of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy with an intermediate FN risk. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01813721.

Chemotherapy treatment patterns and neutropenia management in gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Potentially myelosuppressive doublet and triplet chemotherapy combination regimens are considered the most active treatments in gastric cancer. This multicenter prospective observational study was designed to gain insight into the chemotherapy regimens being used in Europe and to evaluate neutropenia management in patients identified as at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Eligible patients had gastric cancer, were scheduled for ≥ 3 cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk ≥ 20%. Data were collected for up to ten cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (defined as G-CSF initiated on days 1-7 of cycle 1). Secondary endpoints included FN incidence, chemotherapy administration, and G-CSF use.

RESULTS

Of 199 patients who met the eligibility criteria and started at least one cycle of chemotherapy, mean age was 63 years, 76% were men, 83% had an ECOG score of 0 or 1, 54% had metastatic disease, and 24% had received prior chemotherapy. A total of 27 different backbone regimens were given; the most common regimen was modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF). Despite all patients having been identified as having a ≥ 20% FN risk, only 70 (35%) received G-CSF primary prophylaxis. FN occurred in 14 patients overall (7%). Most FN events occurred in patients who received DCF/modified DCF (9/14 events, 64%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study reveal a high use of myelotoxic treatment regimens in gastric cancer in Europe and low adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the use of primary and secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for FN.

Risk of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving emerging chemotherapy regimens

PURPOSE

Considerable evidence exists concerning the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with well-established, older chemotherapy regimens. Little is known, however, about the risks associated with many regimens that were introduced in the past decade and have become the predominant choice for certain cohorts of patients or are increasingly being used in clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data (2006-2011) were employed. Study subjects included adult patients receiving the following: docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC), 5-FU + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (FEC), FEC followed by docetaxel (FEC → D), or docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab (TCH) for non-metastatic breast cancer; TCH for metastatic breast cancer; 5-FU + leucovorin + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for metastatic pancreatic cancer; and bendamustine (with rituximab [BR], without rituximab [B-Mono]) for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). For each patient, the first qualifying chemotherapy course and each cycle therein were identified, as were the use of supportive care-colony-stimulating factors (CSF) and antimicrobials (AMB)-and unique FN episodes.

RESULTS

The crude risk (incidence proportion) of FN during the chemotherapy course ranged from 8.8 (95 % CI 8.3-9.3) to 10.6 % (9.3-12.1) among the breast cancer regimens, was slightly higher for the NHL regimens (BR, 10.5 % [8.9-12.4]; B-Mono, 14.7 % [11.2-18.9]), and was markedly higher for FOLFIRINOX (24.7 % [17.9-33.1]). Most patients developing FN required inpatient care (range, 73-90 %). Use of CSF primary prophylaxis ranged from 17 (B-Mono) to 75 % (FEC → D); use of AMB primary prophylaxis ranged from 6 (FOLFIRINOX) to 13 % (B-Mono).

CONCLUSION

The risk of FN among patients receiving selected emerging chemotherapy regimens is considerable, and most cases require inpatient care. Use of CSF and AMB prophylaxis, however, varies substantially across regimens.