Curative intent therapy for DLBCL in the elderly

Older patients with aggressive lymphoma are extremely heterogeneous due to the high frequency of functional limitations and comorbidities and to the different biological profiles and clinical behavior of the disease. The stratification in three geriatric categories (fit-unfit-frail) based on multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) helps physicians tailor a potentially curative treatment.While an intensive approach with the standard R-CHOP regimen is feasible in fit patients, leading to similar long-term response and survival rates compared to younger ones, in unfit patients a balance between treatment toxicity and curative intent can be obtained through the reduction of dose intensity. Frail patients, treated with best supportive care so far, could benefit from a chemo-free approach with new target drugs. These novel agents, either alone or in combination with chemo-immunotherapy, are changing the therapeutic landscape of older patients with aggressive lymphoma, both in first-line therapy and in the setting of the relapsed/refractory disease.

High D-index during mobilization predicts poor mobilization of CD34+ cells after anti-lymphoma salvage chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Performing stem cell collection after mobilization chemotherapy was a well-balanced strategy between anti-tumor effect and efficient collection of CD34+ cells, but deep and prolonged nadir exposed patients to risk of febrile neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia was known to be associated with lower yields of CD34+ cells, but quantitative data referring to association between yields of CD34+ cells and severity of neutropenia was lacking. We hypothesized that D-index, which was developed for quantitative evaluation of severity of neutropenia especially in the field of hematologic malignancies, could predict yields of CD34+ cells.

METHODS

We performed a single center, retrospective analysis of patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma who were mobilized with ESHAP or modified ESHAP. We evaluated the association between yields of CD34+ cells at first apheresis and D-index.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were included, and we demonstrated that yields of CD34+ cells from patients with higher D-index were significantly lower than those from patients with lower D-index. Multivariate linear regression analysis and logistic regression analysis also demonstrated the significant predictive power of D-index. Further, D-index was significantly correlated to platelet count before starting mobilization chemotherapy. Platelet count was known to predict yields of CD34+ cells, and combination of platelet count and D-index could identify patients with lowest CD34+ yields.

CONCLUSION

D-index could predict yields of CD34+ cells and it seemed that its predictive power was not less than that of platelet count. Prospective studies including more heterogeneous patients were needed to validate our study.

A prospective observational study to evaluate G-CSF usage in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in Italian clinical oncology practice

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a severe dose-limiting side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with solid tumors. Clinical practice guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis with G-CSF in patients with an overall ≥ 20 % risk of FN. AIOM Italian guidelines recommend starting G-CSF within 24-72 h after chemotherapy; for daily G-CSF, administration should continue until the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is 1 × 10(9)/L post-nadir and should not be terminated after ANC increase in the early days of administration. The aim of this study was to assess guideline adherence in oncology practice in Italy. In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, patients were enrolled at the first G-CSF use in any cycle and were followed for two subsequent cycles (or until the end of chemotherapy if less than two additional cycles). Primary objective was to explore G-CSF use in Italian clinical practice; therefore, data were collected on the G-CSF type, timing of administration, and number of doses. 512 eligible patients were enrolled (median age, 62). The most common tumor types were breast (36 %), lung (18 %), and colorectal (13 %). A total of 1,164 G-CSF cycles (daily G-CSF, 718; pegfilgrastim, 446) were observed. Daily G-CSF was administered later than 72 h after chemotherapy in 42 % of cycles, and the median [range] number of doses was four [1, 10]. Pegfilgrastim was administered later than 72 h in 8 % of cycles. G-CSF prophylaxis in Italy is frequently administered in a manner which is not supported by evidence-based guidelines. As this practice may lead to poor outcomes, educational initiatives are recommended.

Efficacy of deferred dosing of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in autologous hematopoietic transplantation for multiple myeloma

Routine administration of G-CSF following autologous hematopoietic SCT (ASCT) expedites ANC recovery and reduces hospitalization by 1–2 days; it has no impact on febrile neutropenia, infections, morbidity, mortality, event-free survival or OS. To determine whether delayed G-CSF dosage could result in equivalent ANC recovery and thereby improve cost effectiveness, we deferred the administration of G-CSF until WBC recovery had begun. A total of 117 patients with multiple myeloma received ASCT from January 2005 to September 2012. Of these, 52 were in the conventional dosing group (CGD) and received G-CSF from Day +7 for a median of five doses. In the deferred dosing group (DGD), 65 patients received G-CSF from median day 14 post transplant for a median of zero doses. There was no difference between groups in the incidence or duration of febrile neutropenia, duration of ⩾grade III mucositis, weight gain, rash, engraftment syndrome or early death (100 days). The DGD group had a significantly longer time to neutrophil engraftment than the CGD group (15 days vs 12 days; P<0.0001), a longer period of severe neutropenia (<100/μL; 8 days vs 6 days; P<0.0001), longer treatment with intravenous antibiotics (7 days vs 5 days; P=0.016) and longer hospital stay (19 days vs 17 days; P=<0.0001). Although the cost of G-CSF was lower in the DGD group (mean $308 vs $2467), the additional hospitalization raised the median total cost of ASCT in this group by 17%. There was, however, no adverse effect of deferred dosing on the rate of febrile neuropenic episodes or Day 100 survival, so that deferred dosing of G-CSF may be suitable for patients receiving ASCT as outpatients, for whom longer hospital stay would not be an offsetting cost.

A risk-adapted protocol for delayed administration of filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation

INTRODUCTION

The routine use of recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is associated with increased costs. We prospectively explored a strategy that used prophylactic delayed filgrastim only in patients with risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This sequential cohort analysis compared the outcomes of consecutive patients, treated on the risk-adapted protocol (RAP) (risk factors: prior febrile neutropenia; age >60 years; and CD34+ cell infused dose of <2 × 10(6/)/kg), who received filgrastim from day +6 after auto-SCT with a historical cohort (historical day-1 cohort [HD1]), who received filgrastim from day +1.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were treated in the RAP cohort and compared with 115 patients in the HD1 cohort. There were no differences in median age (55 years) or median CD34+ cell dose (5.21 × 10(6)/kg [range, 2-62.2 × 10(6)/kg] vs. 5.24 × 10(6)/kg [range, 2.4-29.8 × 10(6)/kg]). Filgrastim was used for 6 fewer days in the RAP cohort (median 5 days [range, 0-11 days] vs. 11 days [range, 9-47 days]). There was a small absolute but significant difference in median time to neutrophil recovery in the HD1 cohort for the whole group, 10 days (range, 8-46 days) vs. 11 days (range, 9-22 days) (P = .03) and in patients with myeloma; 10 days (range, 9-14 days) vs. 11 days (range, 9-18 days) (P < .0001) as compared to the RAP cohort. There was no difference in median inpatient duration, 13 days (range, 10-26 days) vs. 12 days (range, 1-38 days) (P = .22) and 3-year survival (79% vs. 83% [P = .43]) between HD1 and RAP cohorts respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a RAP to identify patients likely to benefit from prophylactic filgrastim is safe and results in cost savings. Patients with myeloma benefit from earlier introduction of filgrastim in terms of neutrophil recovery; this disease-specific observation is an important consideration for future studies.

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

In this article, we reviewed and quantified reporting of the risk of myelotoxicity, specifically febrile neutropenia (FN), and the related use of supportive care with colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or antibiotics in clinical trials published between January 2005 and June 2009, evaluating emerging regimens for the treatment of selected solid tumors. Our analysis showed that clinically significant neutropenia and neutropenia-related events were generally described in the studies evaluated (grade 3/4 neutropenia incidence, 72%; FN incidence, 53%). However, use of CSF and antibiotics was infrequently and inconsistently reported (trials reporting prophylactic CSF and antibiotics use: in the methods section, 38% and 10%, respectively; in the results section, 19% and 1%, respectively). These results highlight the need for a standardized approach to reporting neutropenic outcomes and use of supportive care measures. This can assist clinicians in prospectively managing relevant toxicities associated with these emerging regimens and thereby facilitate their safe and effective use in clinical practice.

[Febrile neutropenia in adult patients with solid tumours: a review of literature toward a rational and optimal management]

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia represents a frequent emergency and evidence based management of this event remains an exigency for each patient. Appropriate use of antibiotics is mandatory, growth factors have to be proposed according to validated guidelines and benefits and risks of antiobioprophylaxy must be discussed. This review propose to summarize available data on these important questions, with a special focus on this management of febrile neutropenia in daily practice.