Randomized, controlled, multicenter phase III trial of standard-dose fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (FEC), compared with time-intensive FEC (FEC-G) and mitoxantrone-methotrexate-mitomycin C (MMM-G) in metastatic breast carcinoma

The impact of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on chemotherapy dose intensity and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is utilized to reduce neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. This study represents a systematic review and evidence summary of the impact of G-CSF support on chemotherapy dose intensity and overall mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support and reporting all-cause mortality with at least 2 years of follow-up were sought. Dual-blind data abstraction of disease, treatment, patient and outcome study results with conflict resolution by third party was carried out.

RESULTS

The search revealed 61 randomized comparisons of chemotherapy with or without initial G-CSF support. Death was reported in 4251 patients randomized to G-CSFs and in 5188 controls. Relative risk (RR) with G-CSF support for all-cause mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.96; P < 0.001). RR for mortality varied by intended chemotherapy dose and schedule: same dose and schedule (RR = 0.96; P = 0.060), dose dense (RR = 0.89; P < 0.001), dose escalation (RR = 0.92; P = 0.019) and drug substitution or addition (RR = 0.94; P = 0.003). Greater RR reduction was observed among studies with longer follow-up (P = 0.02), where treatment was for curative intent (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001), and where survival was the primary outcome (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

All-cause mortality is reduced in patients receiving chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support. The greatest impact was observed in RCTs in patients receiving dose-dense schedules.

Systematic review of efficacy of dose-dense versus non-dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and non-small cell lung cancer

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested a potential advantage of dose-dense chemotherapy in improving disease-free and overall survival in patients with certain malignancies. This systematic review summarizes the literature on the efficacy of dose-dense chemotherapy across various cancers (breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL], and non-small cell lung cancer) and chemotherapy regimens. Among the 17 trials identified, few reported statistically significant differences between dose-dense and standard chemotherapy, and most were small with limited statistical power. Statistically significant differences in overall survival favoring dose-dense schedules were apparent among large RCTs in potentially curative settings such as early-stage breast cancer and NHL. Clinical and treatment heterogeneity demonstrated the flexibility of the dose-dense paradigm but also precluded quantitative meta-analysis of results. Further study of dose-dense schedules based on large RCTs is needed to demonstrate the consistency and generalizability of these findings.

2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Clinical evidence shows that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications where indicated. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem.

Improving outcome of chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer by docosahexaenoic acid: a phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer becomes lethal when visceral metastases develop. At this stage, anti-cancer treatments aim at relieving symptoms and delaying death without resulting in additional toxicity. On the basis of their differential anti-oxidant defence level, tumour cells can be made more sensitive to chemotherapy than non-tumour cells when membrane lipids are enriched with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a peroxidisable and oxidative-stress-inducing lipid of marine origin.

METHODS

This open-label single-arm phase II study evaluated the safety and efficacy (response rate), as primary end points, of the addition of 1.8 g DHA daily to an anthracycline-based chemotherapy (FEC) regimen in breast cancer patients (n = 25) with rapidly progressing visceral metastases. The secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The objective response rate was 44%. With a mean follow-up time of 31 months (range 2-96 months), the median TTP was 6 months. Median OS was 22 months and reached 34 months in the sub-population of patients (n = 12) with the highest plasma DHA incorporation. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicity was neutropaenia (80%).

CONCLUSION

DHA during chemotherapy was devoid of adverse side effects and can improve the outcome of chemotherapy when highly incorporated. DHA has a potential to specifically chemosensitise tumours.

Multiple-treatments meta-analysis of chemotherapy and targeted therapies in advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Many systemic nonhormonal regimens have been evaluated across several hundreds of randomized trials in advanced breast cancer. We aimed to quantify the relative merits of these regimens in prolonging survival.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all trials that compared different regimens involving chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy in advanced breast cancer (1973-2007). Regimens were categorized a priori into different treatment types. We performed multiple-treatments meta-analysis and calculated hazard ratios for each treatment category relative to monotherapy with old agents (ie, regimens not including anthracyclines, anthracenediones, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, capecitabine, taxanes, marimastat, thalidomide, trastuzumab, lapatinib, or bevacizumab).

RESULTS

We identified 370 eligible randomized trials (54,189 patients), of which 172 (31,552 patients) compared different types of treatment. Survival data from 148 comparisons pertaining to 128 of the 172 trials (26,031 patients, 22 different types of treatment) were available for inclusion in the multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Compared with single-agent chemotherapy with old nonanthracycline drugs, anthracycline regimens achieved 22%-33% relative risk reductions in mortality (ie, hazard ratio [HR] for standard-dose anthracycline-based combination: 0.67, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 0.57-0.78). Several newer regimens achieved further benefits (eg, HR [95% CrI] 0.67 [0.55-0.81] for single-drug taxane, 0.64 [0.53-0.78] for combination of anthracyclines with taxane, 0.49 [0.37-0.67] for taxane-based combination with capecitabine or gemcitabine), and similar benefits were seen with several regimens including molecular targeted treatments. Most regimens had very similar efficacy profiles (<5% difference in HR) as first- and subsequent-line therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Stepwise improvements in efficacy of chemotherapy and targeted treatments cumulatively have achieved major improvements in the survival of patients with advanced breast cancer. Many options that can be used in first and subsequent lines of therapy have comparable efficacy profiles.

Role of colony stimulating factors (CSFs) in solid tumours: Results of an expert panel

Febrile neutropenia is a relatively frequent event in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. A relevant body of scientific evidence has been produced in the last 2 decades, through clinical trials addressing the efficacy of colony stimulating factors (CSFs) in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia. The correct use of CSFs needs to be optimized, and several guidelines have been produced and periodically updated, in order to uniform and guide clinical practice. The aim of this review is to synthesize the most relevant clinical trials and the most important existing guidelines about the role of CSFs in solid tumours. Role of CSFs as primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis and treatment of afebrile and febrile neutropenia is discussed. A special focus is dedicated to neutropenia and the use of CSFs in the treatment of the three "big killers" among the solid tumours: breast cancer, lung cancer and colorectal cancer.

Second consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer

The present consensus manuscript defines evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment of metastatic breast cancer depending on disease-associated and biologic variables.

EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.

G-CSF in the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia in Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients

The most common chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of breast cancer are anthracyclines and taxanes. The major dose-limiting toxicities associated with these agents are myelosuppression and associated febrile neutropenia (FN). FN can significantly impact the ability to deliver full-dose chemotherapy on schedule and as a result may increase the risk of disease recurrence and eventual disease-related mortality. The use of granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) significantly improves the management of FN, both in a therapeutic and in a prophylactic approach. Nevertheless, the high cost of these agents limits their widespread prophylactic use. Therefore, the identification of patients who are at a higher risk of developing FN and who will benefit from the prophylactic use of G-CSFs has become the subject of several clinical and cost-effectiveness studies. Recently, new data have been accumulated concerning the risk of FN in different chemotherapy regimens, and different risk models have been developed to assess the neutropenic risk with all its complications. This article reviews and summarizes cutting-edge, disease-specific data as well as national and international guidelines regarding the use of G-CSFs to prevent chemotherapy-induced FN, with focus on the treatment of breast cancer.

Evaluation of toxicities induced by chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

The study includes the breast cancer female patients who had received chemotherapy (CMF, tamoxifen) and the newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, who had not received any chemotherapy. The patients who had received six cycles of CMF had shown low RBC, WBC and platelet count, elevated levels of SGPT, alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase as compared to newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The RBC count is increased in patients who had received CMF and tamoxifen as compared to the patients received only CMF, the alkaline phosphatase level is also declined in patients who had received CMF and tamoxifen as compared to the patients received CMF only.

Phase II multicentre randomised study of docetaxel plus epirubicin vs 5-fluorouracil plus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus epirubicin (ET) and of 5-fluorouracil plus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. A total of 142 patients (intent-to-treat (ITT)) with at least one measurable lesion were randomised to receive docetaxel 75 mg m(-2) plus epirubicin 75 mg m(-2) or 5-fluorouracil 500 mg m(-2) plus epirubicin 75 mg m(-2) and cyclophosphamide 500 mg m(-2) intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Prophylactic granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor was only permitted after the first cycle, if required. Per-protocol analysis (n=132) gave an overall response rate for ET of 63.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 50-78%) and for FEC 34.3% (95% CI, 23-47%) after a median seven and six cycles, respectively. Intent-to-treat population (n=142) gave an overall response rate for ET of 59% (95% CI, 47-70%) and for FEC 32% (95% CI, 21-43%) after a median seven and six cycles, respectively. The median response duration for ET was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.6 months) and for FEC 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.5-10.4 months). The median time to progression (ITT) for ET was 7.8 months (95% CI, 5.8-9.6 months) and for FEC 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.6-7.8 months). After a median follow-up of 23.8 months, median survival (ITT) for ET and FEC were 34 and 28 months, respectively. Nonhaematologic grade 3-4 toxicities were infrequent in both arms. Haematologic toxicity was more common with ET and febrile neutropenia was reported in 13 patients (18.6%) in the ET group. Two deaths in the ET group were possibly related to study treatment. In conclusion, both ET and FEC were associated with acceptable toxicity. ET is a highly active first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer.