Pegylated filgrastim is comparable with filgrastim as support for commonly used chemotherapy regimens: a multicenter, randomized, crossover phase 3 study

Low-dose pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as hematopoietic support for adjuvant chemotherapy in Chinese patients with breast cancer: An open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial

AIMS

The recommended dosage of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) for Western chemotherapy patients is 6 mg per cycle. However, for Eastern Asians, the optimal dose remains unknown.

METHODS

This open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial (NCT05283616) enrolled Chinese female breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants were randomized to receive either 3 or 6 mg of PEG-rhG-CSF per cycle, stratified by body weight (BW; ≤60 kg vs. >60 kg). The primary endpoint was timely absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery before the second cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were randomized and 116 were included for efficacy analyses. The timely ANC recovery rate in the 3 mg arm was 89.8%, compared to 93.0% in the 6 mg arm (one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] lower limit for difference: -11.7%), meeting the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15%. The rate was 93.3% with PEG-rhG-CSF 3 mg and 96.6% with 6 mg in patients with BW ≤ 60 kg, and 86.2% and 89.3%, respectively, in those with BW > 60 kg. Although the incidence of severe neutropenia was similar across arms, the occurrence of excessively high ANC and white blood cell counts was higher in the 6 mg arm. No grade ≥3 adverse events related to PEG-rhG-CSF occurred.

CONCLUSION

Three milligrams of PEG-rhG-CSF per cycle provided non-inferior neutrophil protection and attenuated neutrophil overshoot compared to 6 mg doses. This low-dose regimen could be a new supportive care option for Chinese breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

Landscape of the clinical development of China innovative anti-lung cancer drugs

Even today, lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Throughout the past decades, remarkable advances have been made in the research and development of anti-lung cancer drugs in China. Since the first registered Chinese clinical trial on May 2, 2006, many potent anti-lung cancer drugs have been developed and approved by the China Food and Drug Administration and the National Medical Product Administration of China. Among them, the most advance were observed in the development of targeted agents and immunotherapeutic agents such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) icotinib, aumolertinib, and furmonertinib, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-TKI ensartinib, programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) camrelizumab, sintilimab, and tislelizumab, and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) mAb sugemalimab, which have made huge breakthrough in recent years. Some other investigational innovative drug also demonstrated promising efficacy and acceptable safety profiles. Results from clinical studies on these China innovative drugs have led to changes in clinical practice guidelines and considerably improved the outcomes for patients with lung cancer. Thus, in this review, we aim to provide further insight into the clinical development and achievement of China innovative anti-lung cancer drugs.

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a post-marketing surveillance study

PURPOSE

Phase IV clinical trials are required to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of once-per-cycle administration of PegaGen^® (pegfilgrastim, CinnaGen, Iran) in cancer patients.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, prospective, real-world, post-marketing surveillance study, patients with any type of cancer receiving chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) were included if they were prescribed pegfilgrastim for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and the secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in the prevention of FN in cancer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 654 patients (51.73 ± 15.12 years of age) were enrolled and 3615 cycles of pegfilgrastim injections were recorded. The most common malignancies among the study patients were breast cancer (n = 192, 29.36%), lymphoma (n = 131, 20.03%), and gastric cancer (n = 65, 9.94%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of pegfilgrastim cycles per patient was 6 (4, 7). A single 6 mg dose was injected in 99.17% of the cycles. A total number of 816 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 246 patients (37.62%). Bone pain was recorded in 141 patients (21.56%) and in 440 cycles (12.17%). Among all patients, 45 patients (6.88%) experienced FN 51 times, and FN frequency was 1.4% among cycles. Moreover, 14 (2.14%) patients were hospitalized following FN. Antibiotics were administered to 24 patients (3.67%) for FN treatment.

CONCLUSION

The results from this post-marketing surveillance study support the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen^® used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with various types of cancer and treatment regimens.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04460079.

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.

Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

PEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.

Clinical utility of polyethylene glycol conjugated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-G-CSF) for preventing severe neutropenia in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab: a single-center retrospective study

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of polyethylene glycol conjugated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-G-CSF) for preventing neutropenia in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients that received fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab (Bev) in clinical practice.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed mCRC patients who received FOLFOXIRI plus Bev between December 2015 and December 2017. We evaluated the efficacy of PEG-G-CSF as preventing or treating grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, the overall response rate (ORR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events of FOLFOXIRI plus Bev based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.

Results

A total of 26 patients (median age 53.5 years) were included. The ORR rate was 65.3%, the median PFS was 9.6 months (7.2–16.9), and the median OS was 24.2 months (13.6–NA). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 53.8% of the patients, and febrile neutropenia occurred in 7.7%. PEG-G-CSF was given to 77.0% of the patients, including prophylactically (n = 9) and after the development of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (n = 11). No patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia after the administration of PEG-G-CSF. In seven of the nine patients who received PEG-G-CSF prophylactically (77.8%), no dose adjustment was required.

Conclusions

PEG-G-CSF is useful in preventing severe neutropenia in mCRC patients treated with FOLFOXIRI plus Bev.

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.

Mecapegfilgrastim in Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Profile of Its Use in China

Mecapegfilgrastim (HHPG-19K) is a long-acting pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) that is administered subcutaneously as prophylaxis once per chemotherapy cycle as a weight-adjusted dose of 100 µg/kg or as a 6 mg fixed dose. It is approved in China to reduce the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anti-cancer therapy associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia. In phase III trials, once per cycle prophylaxis with mecapegfilgrastim was more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in cycle 1 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and was more effective than filgrastim at reducing the mean duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in cycle 1 in patients with breast cancer. The tolerability and safety profiles of mecapegfilgrastim were similar to those of filgrastim, with no unexpected adverse events (AEs); most adverse reactions in cycle 1 were mild or moderate in severity. Thus, mecapegfilgrastim is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and extends the options available for managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in China.

Effectiveness of filgrastim and polyethylene glycol-filgrastim in the treatment of postchemotherapy neutropenia in children: Phase I clinical trial

Background: One of the most common side effects of chemotherapy in cancer patients is neutropenia that can result in hospitalization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-filgrastim compared with filgrastim in the recovery of neutropenia. Methods: This study was a Phase I clinical trial conducted among patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia aged <16 years who were referred to the Ali Asghar Hospital, Tehran, Iran, from April 2012 until October 2013. Eleven patients were selected, and filgrastim and PEG-filgrastim were injected subcutaneously at a dose of 5–10 μg/kg/day for 7 days and 100 μg/kg as a single dose, respectively. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was checked 7 days after the last injection in the two groups. Results: The mean age of the patients was 8.82 ± 4.36 years (3–15 years). Six boys (54.5%) and five girls (45.5%) participated in the study. ANC increase among patients treated with PEG-filgrastim or filgrastim was analyzed separately, and the results showed statistically significant differences between the study groups (P = 0.038). Conclusions: According to the findings, it can be concluded that the PEG-filgrastim is better than filgrastim alone to improve neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia

Introduction

Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.

Methods

Medline^®/Medline in-process, Embase^®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.

Results

The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).

Conclusions

Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.

Funding

Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events

Background

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim.

Methods

Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator.

Results

This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2–4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2–4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0.45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2–4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim.

Conclusions

Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.

A phase I study of different doses and frequencies of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG rhG-CSF) in patients with standard-dose chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Objective

The recommended dose of prophylactic pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG rhG-CSF) is 100 μg/kg once per cycle for patients receiving intense-dose chemotherapy. However, few data are available on the proper dose for patients receiving less-intense chemotherapy. The aim of this phase I study is to explore the proper dose and administration schedule of PEG rhG-CSF for patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy.

Methods

Eligible patients received 3-cycle chemotherapy every 3 weeks. No PEG rhG-CSF was given in the first cycle. Patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia would then enter the cycle 2 and 3. In cycle 2, patients received a single subcutaneous injection of prophylactic PEG rhG-CSF on d 3, and received half-dose subcutaneous injection in cycle 3 on d 3 and d 5, respectively. Escalating doses (30, 60, 100 and 200 μg/kg) of PEG rhG-CSF were investigated.

Results

A total of 26 patients were enrolled and received chemotherapy, in which 24 and 18 patients entered cycle 2 and cycle 3 treatment, respectively. In cycle 2, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia for patients receiving single-dose PEG rhG-CSF of 30, 60, 100 and 200 μg/kg was 66.67%, 33.33%, 22.22% and 0, respectively, with a median duration less than 1 (0-2) d. No grade 3 or higher neutropenia was noted in cycle 3 in all dose cohorts.

Conclusions

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of PEG rhG-CSF used in cancer patients were similar to those reported, as well as the safety. Double half dose administration model showed better efficacy result than a single dose model in terms of grade 3 neutropenia and above. The single dose of 60 μg/kg, 100 μg/kg and double half dose of 30 μg/kg were recommended to the phase II study, hoping to find a preferable method for neutropenia treatment.

Colony-stimulating factors for the treatment of the hematopoietic component of the acute radiation syndrome (H-ARS): a review

One of the greatest national security threats to the United States is the detonation of an improvised nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device in a heavily populated area. As such, this type of security threat is considered to be of relatively low risk, but one that would have an extraordinary high impact on health and well-being of the US citizenry. Psychological counseling and medical assessments would be necessary for all those significantly impacted by the nuclear/radiological event. Direct medical interventions would be necessary for all those individuals who had received substantial radiation exposures (e.g., >1 Gy). Although no drugs or products have yet been specifically approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) to treat the effects of acute radiation syndrome (ARS), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and pegylated G-CSF have been used off label for treating radiation accident victims. Recent threats of terrorist attacks using nuclear or radiologic devices makes it imperative that the medical community have up-to-date information and a clear understanding of treatment protocols using therapeutically effective recombinant growth factors and cytokines such as G-CSF and GM-CSF for patients exposed to injurious doses of ionizing radiation. Based on limited human studies with underlying biology, we see that the recombinants, G-CSF and GM-CSF appear to have modest, but significant medicinal value in treating radiation accident victims. In the near future, the US FDA may approve G-CSF and GM-CSF as ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ (EUA) for managing radiation-induced aplasia, an ARS-related pathology. In this article, we review the status of growth factors for the treatment of radiological/nuclear accident victims.

A Randomized Multicenter Phase III Study of Single Administration of Mecapegfilgrastim (HHPG-19K), a Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar, for Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

Mecapegfilgrastim (code name HHPG-19K) is a biosimilar to pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF). The efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim, using a regimen of once-per-cycle injection of 100-μg/kg or a fixed 6-mg dose, were evaluated for the prophylactic therapy for neutropenia in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized (1:1:1) blindly to 3 treatment arms to receive a single injection of mecapegfilgrastim 100 μg/kg, a 6-mg fixed dose of mecapegfilgrastim, or saline (control) in cycle 1. In cycles 2 to 4 following unblinding at the end of cycle 1, patients in the control arm received daily injections of short-acting rhG-CSF at a dose of 5 μg/kg, whereas patients in the 2 mecapegfilgrastim arms continued the same treatment as in cycle 1. All patients received 4 chemotherapy cycles of docetaxel combined with cisplatin or carboplatin every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in cycle 1.

RESULTS

A single dose of 100 μg/kg or a fixed 6-mg dose of mecapegfilgrastim per cycle effectively reduced chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and was comparable to daily rhG-CSF with regard to all efficacy endpoints, including incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, incidence of febrile neutropenia, duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, and time to neutrophil recovery. No difference in efficacy parameters was observed between the 2-dose regimens of mecapegfilgrastim across all cycles. Mecapegfilgrastim was well-tolerated and was as safe as daily rhG-CSF.

CONCLUSION

Once-per-cycle injection of mecapegfilgrastim is as effective and safe as daily rhG-CSF for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with NSCLC. Mecapegfilgrastim (fixed 6-mg dose) is recommended in clinical practice for its convenient dose management.

An open-label, randomized, multicenter dose-finding study of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving TAC chemotherapy

A chemotherapy regimen of docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) has been accepted as a standard care because of their superior clinical benefit in early-stage breast cancer patients, but with a higher risk of neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle therapy for prophylactic neutrophil support and neutropenia prevention. There was still a lack of direct evidences for finding an optimal fixed dose of pegfilgrastim in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving TAC regimen. An open-label, randomized, phase II study was designed to compare the effects of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. Eighteen centers in China enrolled 171 eligible female breast cancer patients with cycles of TAC chemotherapy treatment, randomized into four arms, received a single subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim (60, 100 or 120 µg/kg) per chemotherapy cycle or daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim 5 µg/kg 24 h after chemotherapy. Efficacy and safety were analyzed. In ITT population, the mean duration of grade 3+ neutropenia (neutrophil count <1.0 × 10(9)/l) was 2.09, 1.53 and 1.73 days in patients who received pegfilgrastim 60, 100 and 120 µg/kg/cycle, respectively, and 1.69 days in patients who received 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim (P = 0.043). The incidence of grade 3+ neutropenia was 76, 83 and 74 % for doses of pegfilgrastim and 90 % for filgrastim (P = 0.409). The results for febrile neutropenia, time to neutrophil recovery and neutrophil profile were also not significantly different between arms. The safety profiles of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim were similar. A single dose of 100 µg/kg once-per-cycle administration of pegfilgrastim provided neutrophil support and a safety profile comparable to daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving TAC chemotherapy.

Medical management of lung cancer: Experience in China

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer worldwide, as well as in China. A multidisciplinary treatment strategy for lung cancer, which includes medical and radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology is used in clinical practice in China. Chinese lung cancer patients are treated according to different pathologic and genetic types of the disease. For those with active epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are used in first-, second- or third-line and maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangement, Crizotinib is a promising treatment in advanced NSCLC patients. A platinum-based regimen remains the mainstay of first-line systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC patients who are negative for EGFR mutation or ALK gene rearrangement. For patients with non-squamous NSCLC, Pemetrexed plus Cisplatin is recommended in first-line systemic therapy. An Endostatin combination with chemotherapy is used in first- and second-line advanced NSCLC patients. S-1 presents a new option of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC cases. Cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy is commonly used in NSCLC patients after surgery as adjuvant therapy. EGFR-TKIs are now being assessed in the adjuvant setting. The standard first-line chemotherapy regimen of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is platinum with Etoposide (PE). Amrubicin provides similar survival compared with the PE regimen with an acceptable toxicity profile in extensive stage SCLC patients. Supportive care, such as traditional Chinese medicine and pegylated filgrastim, play an important role in improving patients' quality of life.