Randomized, controlled, dose-range study of Ro 25-8315 given before and after a high-dose combination chemotherapy regimen in patients with metastatic or recurrent breast cancer patients

Pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor versus non-pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilizes and increases the amount of hematopoietic stem cells in peripheral blood, enabling its harvest by few apheresis procedures. The pegylated G-CSF has longer half-life and is given once only, which is more comfortable for patients, whereas the non-pegylated requires multiple daily injection because of its short half-life. We summarized results of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of pegylated and non-pegylated G-CSF for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization. We searched the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two conference proceedings. Two authors made the selection, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality using GRADE independently. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis. We found 3956 records and retrieved 47 full texts. We included eight randomized trials with a total number of 554 randomized and 532 analyzed subjects. The meta-analysis included five trials because not all trials reported the same outcomes. Pooling data from two studies shows no evidence for a difference in the successful mobilization rate (CD34+ cell ≥ 2 × 10⁶ /kg collected) between pegfilgrastim 6 mg (early administration) and filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day (147 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.67-1.11; P = .26). Pooling data from three studies shows no difference in the incidence of adverse events between pegylated and non-pegylated G-CSF (170 participants; RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.34-2.17; P = .75). No difference found on the quantity of CD34+ cells collected, number of apheresis procedure in successful mobilization, level of peak PB CD34+ cells achieved, and day of neutrophil and platelet engraftment.

Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Pegfilgrastim was introduced over a decade ago. Other long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have recently been developed. We systematically reviewed the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neutropenia prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts from key congresses. Studies of long-acting G-CSFs for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) were identified by two independent reviewers. Abstracts and full texts were assessed for final inclusion; risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's tool. Effectiveness and safety results were extracted according to study type and G-CSF used.

RESULTS

Of the 839 articles identified, 41 articles representing different studies met the eligibility criteria. In five randomised controlled trials, 11 clinical trials and 17 observational studies across several tumour types and chemotherapy regimens, pegfilgrastim was used alone or compared with daily G-CSF, no G-CSF, no upfront pegfilgrastim or placebo. Studies generally reported lower incidence of CIN (4/7 studies), FN (11/14 studies), hospitalisations (9/13 studies), antibiotic use (6/7 studies) and adverse events (2/5 studies) with pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, no upfront pegfilgrastim or no G-CSF. Eight studies evaluated other long-acting G-CSFs; most (5/8) were compared to pegfilgrastim and involved patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel-based therapy. Efficacy and safety profiles of balugrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable to pegfilgrastim in phase 3 studies. Efficacy and safety of other long-acting G-CSFs were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim reduced the incidence of FN and CIN compared with no prophylaxis. Most studies showed better efficacy and effectiveness for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim. Efficacy and safety profiles of lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were similar to pegfilgrastim.

Ancestim (r-metHuSCF) plus filgrastim and/or chemotherapy for mobilization of blood progenitors in 513 poorly mobilizing cancer patients: the French compassionate experience

Ancestim (r-MetHuSCF) is available in France for compassionate use in patients who are candidates for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous transplantation, and who failed in previous attempts at mobilization and collection. We report here data from 513 adult patients who benefited from this program, between January 1998 and July 2007. Given with systematic premedication, ancestim was generally well tolerated, although severe but not life-threatening adverse events were reported in 12 individuals. Overall, a graft was obtained or completed for 235 patients (46%). The median number of collected CD34+ cells was 3.00 × 10(6)/kg (range: 0.03-39.50). The target threshold of 2 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was reached in 161 patients (31%). Factors associated with collection were diagnosis of myeloma, no previous autologous transplant, no more than one previous failed attempt and a mobilization regimen including cytotoxic agents. A total of 207 patients (40%) proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous transplantation. The median time to reach 0.5 × 10(9)/L neutrophils and 20 × 10(9)/L platelets was 12 (6-40) and 13 (0-31) days, respectively. We conclude that a combination of ancestim with filgrastim successfully mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood, and allowed adequate collection in preparation for autologous transplantation in approximately one-third of poorly mobilizing patients.

Sunitinib: from rational design to clinical efficacy

Sunitinib (SU011248) is an oral small molecular tyrosine kinase inhibitor that exhibits potent antiangiogenic and antitumor activity. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as SU6668 and SU5416 (semaxanib) demonstrated poor pharmacologic properties and limited efficacy; therefore, sunitinib was rationally designed and chosen for its high bioavailability and its nanomolar-range potency against the antiangiogenic receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs)--vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR). Sunitinib inhibits other tyrosine kinases including, KIT, FLT3, colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1), and RET, which are involved in a number of malignancies including small-cell lung cancer, GI stromal tumors (GISTs), breast cancer, acute myelogenous leukemia, multiple endocrine neoplasia types 2A and 2B, and familial medullary thyroid carcinoma. Sunitinib demonstrated robust antitumor activity in preclinical studies resulting not only in tumor growth inhibition, but tumor regression in models of colon cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, renal carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma, which were associated with inhibition of VEGFR and PDGFR phosphorylation. Clinical activity was demonstrated in neuroendocrine, colon, and breast cancers in phase II studies, whereas definitive efficacy has been demonstrated in advanced renal cell carcinoma and in imatinib-refractory GISTs, leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval of sunitinib for treatment of these two diseases. Studies investigating sunitinib alone in various tumor types and in combination with chemotherapy are ongoing. The clinical benchmarking of this small-molecule inhibitor of members of the split-kinase domain family of RTKs will lead to additional insights regarding the biology, potential biomarkers, and clinical utility of agents that target multiple signaling pathways in tumor, stromal, and endothelial compartments.

Impact on survival of time from definitive surgery to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

To determine if time to start of adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery influences survival in early-stage breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 2,594 patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I and II breast cancer between 1989 and 1998 at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared among patients grouped by time from definitive curative surgery to start of adjuvant chemotherapy (< or = 4 weeks, > 4 to 8 weeks, > 8 to 12 weeks, and >12 to 24 weeks).

RESULTS

RFS and OS were similar for women starting chemotherapy up to 12 weeks after surgery. OS hazard ratio (univariate) for initiation of chemotherapy more than 12 weeks compared with 12 weeks or less after surgery was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.07 to 2.10; P = .017). Five-year OS rates were 84%, 85%, 89%, and 78%, (log-rank P = .013); RFS rates were 74%, 79%, 82%, and 69% (log-rank P = .004) for patients starting chemotherapy 4 weeks or fewer, more than 4 to 8 weeks, more than 8 to 12 weeks, and more than 12 to 24 weeks after surgery, respectively. In multivariate analysis, independent prognostic factors were grade, size, nodal status, estrogen receptor, age, and lymphatic and/or vascular invasion. Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy more than 12 weeks from surgery remained significantly associated with inferior survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3; P = .005).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis suggests that adjuvant chemotherapy is equally effective up to 12 weeks after definitive surgery but that RFS and OS appear to be compromised by delays of more than 12 weeks after definitive surgery.

Timely Withdrawal of G-CSF Reduces the Occurrence of Thrombocytopenia During Dose-dense Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Post chemotherapy Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces leucopenia, while G-CSF priming shortly before chemotherapy increases myelotoxicity. We performed a trial with a two-schedule crossover design to determine the optimal G-CSF schedule for densified 2-weekly chemotherapy.

METHODS

During 2-weekly chemotherapy days 1 and 2, G-CSF was given on days 3-10, with a G-CSF-free interval before the next chemotherapy cycle of 5 days, or on days 3-13, with a G-CSF-free interval of 2 days. In schedule A, cycle II was preceded by a 5 days, cycle III and IV by a 2 days and cycle V by a 5 days G-CSF free interval. In schedule B, this was 2, 5, 5, and 2 days, respectively.

RESULTS

Intra-patient comparison for cycles II versus III and cycles IV versus V showed that platelet (PLT) nadir count was significantly lower for cycles preceded by a 2-days compared to a 5-days G-CSF free interval: mean difference 45.7 x 10(9)/l (95% CI 33.2-58.2, p = 0.0001). Neutrophil count did not differ significantly (p = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Timely withdrawal of G-CSF in dose-dense chemotherapy reduces chemotherapy-related thrombocytopenia. Leucopenia was not aggravated, reflecting a protective effect of post-chemotherapy G-CSF.

Pegfilgrastim, a sustained-duration form of filgrastim, significantly improves neutrophil recovery after autologous marrow transplantation in rhesus macaques

Daily administration of filgrastim decreases the duration of severe neutropenia in the clinical setting. A sustained-duration form of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, significantly reduces scheduling protocols to a single injection per chemotherapy cycle while maintaining therapeutic efficiency. We examined the ability of a single injection of pegfilgrastim to significantly improve neutrophil recovery following autologous bone marrow transplantation (AuBMT) in rhesus macaques. On day 1, postmyeloablation (920 cGy x-irradiation) and AuBMT, animals received either 0.1% autologous serum for 18 consecutive days (n=13), or single doses of pegfilgrastim via the subcutaneous (s.c.) or intravenous (i.v.) route (300 or 100 micro g/kg), or a single dose of filgrastim at 300 micro g/kg via the s.c. or i.v. route, or filgrastim at 10 micro g/kg via the s.c. route (n=4) on a daily basis (range=days 12-17). Pharmacokinetic parameters and neutrophil recovery were assessed. A single dose of pegfilgrastim via the i.v. or s.c. route was as effective as daily filgrastim administration, resulting in significant improvement of neutrophil recovery after myeloablation and ABuMT. Effective pegfilgrastim plasma concentrations were maintained in neutropenic animals until after the onset of hematopoietic recovery. Enhanced pharmacokinetics in AuBMT cohorts are consistent with self-regulating, neutrophil-mediated clearance.

Phase III trial of paclitaxel at two dose levels, the higher dose accompanied by filgrastim at two dose levels in platinum-pretreated epithelial ovarian cancer: an intergroup study

PURPOSE

To determine if increasing the dose of paclitaxel increases the probability of clinical response, progression-free survival, or overall survival in women who have persistent or recurrent ovarian cancer, and whether doubling the dose of prophylactic filgrastim accompanying the higher paclitaxel dose decreases the frequency of neutropenic fever.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consenting patients with persistent, recurrent, or progressing ovarian cancer, despite first-line platinum therapy (but no prior taxane), were randomly assigned to paclitaxel 135 mg/m2, 175 mg/m2, or 250 mg/m2 over 24 hours every 3 weeks. Patients receiving paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 were also randomly assigned to 5 or 10 microg/kg of filgrastim per day subcutaneously.

RESULTS

Accession to the paclitaxel 135-mg/m2 arm was closed early. Among the 271 patients on the other regimens with measurable disease, partial and complete response on paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 (36%) was significantly higher than on 175 mg/m2 (27%, P =.027). This difference was more evident among patients who never responded to prior platinum. However, progression-free and overall survival results were similar. The median durations of overall survival were 13.1 and 12.3 months for paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and 250 mg/m2, respectively. Thrombocytopenia, neuropathy, and myalgia were greater with paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 (P <.05). The incidence of neutropenic fever after the first cycle of paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 was 19% and 18% on the 5-microg/kg and 10-microg/kg filgrastim dose, respectively (22% for paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 without filgrastim).

CONCLUSION

Paclitaxel exhibits a dose effect with regard to response rate, but there is more toxicity and no survival benefit to justify paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 plus filgrastim. Doubling the filgrastim dose from 5 to 10 microg/kg did not reduce the probability of neutropenic fever after high-dose paclitaxel.