Epirubicin + G-CSF as peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) mobilising agents in breast cancer patients

Multiple cycles of PBPC-supported high-dose carboplatin and paclitaxel following mobilization with epirubicin and cisplatin are feasible but ineffective in treating patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

We verified the feasibility of a multi-cycle peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC)-supported high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) regimen in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The HDC regimen consisted of a single course of high-dose epirubicin given in combination with cisplatin plus filgrastim, followed by three courses of high doses of carboplatin and paclitaxel with PBPC reinfusion and filgrastim. Of the 16 enrolled patients, 13 provided an adequate number of PBPCs by a single leukapheresis, while in the three needed two procedures, with a median number of CD34+, CD34+/CD33- and CD34+/CD38- cells collected per patient was 13.5 x 10(6), 10.9 x 10(6) and 0.9 x 10(6)/kg, respectively. No toxic death occurred, and the collected PBPCs supported a rapid hematopoietic reconstitution after HDC; however, seven patients early interrupted the treatment early due to early progressive disease (n=4) or prolonged grade 3 peripheral neurotoxicity (n=3). Despite an overall response rate of 42%, the median survival for stage IV patients has been 5 months (range: 1-25+). Of two patients with stage IIIB NSCLC, one is continuously disease-free at 71+ months, while of 14 with stage IV disease, one is currently alive with disease at 25+ months. In conclusion, the combination of high-dose epirubicin with cisplatin plus filgrastim is an effective regimen in releasing large amounts of PBPCs, which can then be safely employed to support multiple courses of HDC. Multiple cycles of PBPC-supported high-dose carboplatin and paclitaxel are ineffective in treating patients with advanced NSCLC.

High-dose epirubicin, preceded by dexrazoxane, given in combination with paclitaxel plus filgrastim provides an effective mobilizing regimen to support three courses of high-dose dense chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II-IIIA breast cancer

SUMMARY

We verified the possibility of collecting large amounts of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) to support three courses of adjuvant high-dose dense chemotherapy (HDDC) with high-dose epirubicin, preceded by dexrazoxane, and high-dose paclitaxel, in patients with high-risk breast cancer (>/=9 positive nodes). The mobilizing regimen consisted of high-dose epirubicin 150 mg/m(2), preceded by dexrazoxane 1000 mg/m(2) (day 1), given in combination with paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) (day 2), plus filgrastim. Of the 25 patients enrolled, one went off study due to a severe hypersensitivity reaction to paclitaxel, another did not undergo leukapheresis due to fever persistent after hematological recovery, while in 23 patients an adequate number of PBSCs was collected by a single leukapheresis. The median number of CD34+, CD34+/CD33-, and CD34+/CD38- cells collected per patient was 17 x 10(6)/kg, 13.4 x 10(6)/kg, and 1.5 x 10(6)/kg, respectively. Neutropenia was the only grade 4 toxicity and lasted a median of 3 days. High-dose epirubicin, preceded by dexrazoxane for the first time used in mobilizing regimen, and paclitaxel plus filgrastim are effective in releasing large amounts of PBSCs, which can then be safely employed to support multiple courses of HDDC.

Treatment of breast cancer with chemotherapy in combination with filgrastim: approaches to improving therapeutic outcome

Chemotherapy improves disease-free and overall survival in breast cancer, and its benefit is directly related to the percentage of the planned dose that is actually administered. In all current chemotherapeutic regimens, a substantial proportion of patients have reductions and/or delays in dosage due to side effects. In about half such cases, the delays or reductions are related to neutropenia. Overall, approximately 30% of patients have a reduction to less than 85% of the planned dosage. Women aged > or = 50 years are more likely to experience a reduction or delay in dose. Dose-intense regimens (excluding myeloablative high-dose chemotherapy) which increase the dose of chemotherapy or reduce the interval between cycles, or both, are a promising approach now under investigation. The human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor filgrastim reduces the incidence of neutropenia and facilitates adherence to full dose intensity in both standard and dose-intensified regimens. A model based on the first-cycle absolute neutrophil count nadir has been developed and validated to determine which patients should receive filgrastim. A cost benefit associated with the use of filgrastim in patients with breast cancer has been realised. This may lead to a re-evaluation of the current treatment guidelines.

Hematological recovery and peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization after induction chemotherapy and GM-CSF plus G-CSF in breast cancer

In order to determine the effect of GM-CSF plus G-CSF in combination in breast cancer patients receiving an effective induction regimen, we compared hematological recovery and peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) mobilization according to colony-stimulating factor (CSF) support. Forty-three breast cancer patients were treated by TNCF (THP-doxorubicin, vinorelbine, cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, D1 to D4) with CSF support: 11 patients received GM-CSF (D5 to D14); 16 patients G-CSF (D5 to D14) and 16 patients GM-CSF (D5-D14) plus G-CSF (D10-D14). Between two subsequent cycles, progenitor cells were assessed daily, from D13 to D17. The WBC count was similar for patients receiving G-CSF alone or GM-CSF plus G-CSF, but significantly greater than that of patients receiving GM-CSF alone (P<0.001). The GM-CSF plus G-CSF combination led to better PBPC mobilization, with significantly different kinetics (P<0.001) and optimal mean values of CFU-GM, CD34+ cells and cells in cycle, at D15 compared to those obtained with G-CSF or GM-CSF alone. The significantly greater PBPC mobilization obtained with a CSF combination by D15 could be of value for PBPC collection and therapeutic reinjection after high-dose chemotherapies.

Single agent epirubicin as first line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer patients

In order to better explore the toxicity and the activity of high dose epirubicin (120 mg/m2, 3 weeks) we analyzed a population of 127 metastatic breast cancer patients, treated in a randomized clinical trial conducted to evaluate the cardioprotective effect of dexrazoxane against epirubicin induced cardiotoxicity. All the patients had a diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer, an ECOG performance status < or = 2 and normal hematologic, renal, hepatic and cardiac function. No prior adjuvant chemotherapy including anthracycline was allowed. Epirubicin was given at the dose of 120 mg/m2 i.v. bolus every 3 weeks. One hundred twenty five patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. Seventeen patients (11%) had a complete response and 47 patients (37%) a partial response, for an overall response rate of 48%. The median progression free and overall survivals were 8.3 months and 18.3 months, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia were observed in 8% and 7% of the patients, respectively. The most frequent nonhematological grade 3 toxicities were alopecia (87%), nausea and vomiting (16%), and mucositis (8%). Cardiotoxicity, defined as occurrence of congestive heart failure, decrease in resting left ventricular ejection fraction (L-VEF) to < or = 45%, or 20 EF units decrease from baseline L-VEF, was observed in 19% of the patients, after a median cumulative dose of epirubicin of 720 mg/m2 (range 120-1440). This study confirms in a large series of patients the activity of high dose epirubicin; however, the high incidence of cardiotoxicity requires a careful evaluation of cardiac risk factors before treatment.

Epirubicin: a review of its efficacy as adjuvant therapy and in the treatment of metastatic disease in breast cancer

Epirubicin is a semisynthetic derivative of doxorubicin which has been extensively evaluated in patients with breast cancer. It is effective in the management of metastatic disease and as adjuvant therapy in patients with early breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, epirubicin-based therapy appears to have efficacy at least equivalent to that of the standard therapy cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF), with the most recent trials, predominantly in premenopausal patients, reporting significant gains in relapse-free survival and overall survival for epirubicin-based vs CMF therapy. In a single trial, the 5-year relapse-free survival of postmenopausal patients receiving long term hormonal therapy (tamoxifen) was significantly increased when epirubicin was added as single-agent chemotherapy and compared with tamoxifen alone. In patients with metastatic disease, epirubicin- and doxorubicin-containing regimens (with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil; FEC and FAC) are therapeutically equivalent. Increasing the dose of epirubicin appears to improve response rates in patients with either metastatic or early disease but, with the exception of 1 adjuvant study, improved overall survival has not been demonstrated. Quality of life (QOL) has yet to be adequately evaluated with epirubicin. The major adverse effects of epirubicin are acute dose-limiting haematotoxicity and cumulative dose-related cardiotoxicity. Other important adverse effects include mucositis, nausea and vomiting, reversible alopecia and local cutaneous reactions. However, the tolerability of epirubicin is better than that of doxorubicin at equimolar doses.

CONCLUSION

Epirubicin has been extensively investigated in patients with breast cancer and has been found to be a highly effective agent, both for the treatment of patients with metastatic disease and as an adjuvant therapy. Recent trials have confirmed that, in selected patients requiring adjuvant therapy, FEC therapy is at least as effective as CMF, a standard treatment. FEC is also therapeutically equivalent to FAC in patients with metastatic breast cancer, and because the therapeutic index appears to be better the opportunity exists to increase dose intensity in an effort to improve efficacy. Such trials, and those of combinations of epirubicin with newer or alternative agents, should result in the introduction of more effective and better tolerated epirubicin-based protocols for adjuvant therapy and the management of patients with advanced breast cancer. In the meantime there is sufficient evidence to justify consideration of epirubicin for inclusion in first-line therapies for patients with early or metastatic breast cancer.

The use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors following Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cell Rescue after High-Dose Chemotherapy for Advanced Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study

The use of high-dose chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic rescue is increasing worldwide for solid tumors. Several studies have suggested that the period of absolute neutrophil count (ANC, <500/ml) may be shortened in patients who receive peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC). To estimate the clinical value of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor, we examined a cohort of 26 consecutive patients with advanced breast cancer who received one or two cycles of high-dose chemotherapy with PBPC rescue with or without filgrastim. Thirty-five courses of high-dose ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) chemotherapy were administered and evaluated. All patients received PBPC rescue. Sixteen patients (21 courses) received subcutaneous filgrastim (5 mg/kg) following PBPC infusion. Recovery to ≥ 500 ANC occurred at a median time of 7 days post PBPC infusion among patients who received filgrastim versus 10 days among patients who received standard support care only (P<0.01). The administration of filgrastim was not associated with a reduction in the duration of hospitalization, in the total number of days on nonprophylactic antibiotics, number of red blood cell transfusions, time to platelet engraftment, or number of febrile days. This could be the consequence of the high hematopoietic cell dose administered in the study. Therefore, any effect of filgrastim was probably masked by the use of a large number of PBPC. Larger prospective randomized studies, specifically focused on the utility of the administration of growth factors following high-dose chemotherapy and PBPC rescue, may be warranted to know whether the administration of filgrastim after PBPC transplantation is really necessary.