G-CSF as prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in SCLC

Two decades of pegfilgrastim: what have we learned? Where do we go from here?

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that may occur in patients with malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN requires early therapeutic intervention since it is associated with increased hospitalizations and high mortality risk of 5%-20%. FN-related hospitalizations are higher in patients with myeloid malignancies than in those with solid tumors due to the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy regimens and the compromised bone marrow function. FN increases the burden of cancer by causing chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The administration of the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), filgrastim, reduced the incidence and duration of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Filgrastim later evolved into pegfilgrastim, which has a longer half-life than filgrastim and was associated with a lower rate of severe neutropenia, chemotherapy dose reduction, and treatment delay. Nine million patients have received pegfilgrastim since its approval in early 2002. The pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) is an innovative device facilitating the time-released auto-injection of pegfilgrastim approximately 27 hours after chemotherapy, as clinically recommended for the prevention of FN, thus eliminating the need for a next-day hospital visit. Since its introduction in 2015, one million patients with cancer have received pegfilgrastim using the OBI. Subsequently, the device has been approved in the United States (US), European Union, Latin America, and Japan, with studies and a postmarketing commitment demonstrating device reliability. A recent prospective observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that the OBI substantially improved the adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended pegfilgrastim therapy; patients receiving pegfilgrastim via the OBI experienced a lower incidence of FN than those receiving alternatives for FN prophylaxis. This review discusses the evolution of G-CSFs leading to the development of the OBI, current recommendations for G-CSF prophylaxis in the clinic, continued evidence supporting next-day pegfilgrastim administration, and improvements in patient care made possible with the OBI.

G-CSF promotes the viability and angiogenesis of injured liver via direct effects on the liver cells

Background

Presently, liver transplantation is the only treatment strategy for liver failure (LF). Although granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) exhibits protective functions in LF, it is not clear whether it directly affects the liver cells.

Methods and Results

We established an injured liver cell model and observed that G-CSF treatment promoted cell viability and enhanced Ki67 and VEGF-A expression. Thereafter, human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were cultured in a conditioned medium collected from the G-CSF-treated injured liver cells. HUVECs’ proliferation and tubule formation were promoted. Furthermore, in an injured liver mouse model, confirmed via haematoxylin–eosin staining, we evaluated serum alanine aminotransferase activity, Ki67 expression, and microvessel density (MVD). G-CSF treatment significantly relieved liver injury, upregulated Ki67 expression, and enhanced MVD in the injured mouse liver tissue. Additionally, AKT and ERK signal targets were explored, and it was demonstrated that the effects of G-CSF on injured liver cells were mediated through the AKT and ERK signalling pathways.

Conclusions

G-CSF promotes injured liver viability and angiogenesis by directly affecting injured liver cells via the AKT and ERK signalling pathways. These findings improve our understanding of the role of G-CSF in recovery from LF.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11033-022-07715-4.

Real-world burden of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical data from community cancer care providers

AIMS

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly exhibits as neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, represents a substantial burden for patients with cancer that affects health-related quality of life and increases healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). We evaluated the burden of myelosuppression among chemotherapy-treated patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) using real-world data from community cancer care providers in the Western United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational analysis of electronic medical records (EMRs) from Providence St. Joseph Health hospital-associated oncology clinics between January 2016 and December 2019. Patient demographics were assessed from the date of first SCLC diagnosis in adult patients with chemotherapy-induced grade ≥3 myelosuppression in first-line (1L) or second-line-and-beyond (2L+) treatment settings. Myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), treatment patterns, and HCRU were assessed from the date of chemotherapy initiation (index date) until 12 months, date of the last visit, date of death, or study end, whichever occurred earliest.

RESULTS

Of 347 eligible patients with SCLC who had received chemotherapy (mean age 66; 49% female), all had received at least 1L treatment, and 103 (29.7%) had a 2L + treatment recorded within the EMR during the study period. Of 338 evaluable patients with longitudinal laboratory data, 206 (60.9%) experienced grade ≥3 myelosuppressive AEs, most commonly neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (44.9, 41.1, and 25.4 per 100 patients, respectively). Rates of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use and red blood cell transfusions were 47.0 and 41.7 per 100 patients, respectively. There was a trend toward increasing the use of supportive care interventions and visits to inpatient and outpatient facilities in patients with myelosuppressive AEs in more than one cell lineage.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression places a substantial real-world burden on patients with SCLC in the community cancer care setting. Innovations to protect bone marrow from chemotherapy-induced damage have the potential to reduce this burden.

Medication overuse in oncology: current trends and future implications for patients and society

The high cost of cancer care worldwide is largely attributable to rising drugs prices. Despite their high costs and potential toxic effects, anticancer treatments could be subject to overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to harm than to benefit a patient. We found 30 studies documenting medication overuse in cancer, which included 16 examples of supportive medication overuse and 17 examples of antineoplastic medication overuse in oncology. Few specific agents have been assessed, and no studies investigated overuse of the most toxic or expensive medications currently used in cancer treatment. Although financial, psychological, or physical harms of medication overuse in cancer could be substantial, there is little published evidence addressing these harms, so their magnitude is unclear. Further research is needed to better quantify medication overuse, understand its implications, and help protect patients and the health-care system from overuse.

Comparison of demographics, treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs among elderly patients with extensive-stage small cell and metastatic non-small cell lung cancers

Background

Limited data exist regarding real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (esSCLC) among elderly patients in the United States. While abundant data are available on treatment patterns in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), to our knowledge no data exist comparing costs and resource use between patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed administrative claims data (2000–2008) of patients aged ≥65 years from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were selected on the basis of having newly diagnosed esSCLC (n=5,855) or mNSCLC (n=24,090) during 1/1/2000-12/31/2005, and were required to have received cancer-directed therapy. Survival and other measures were compared between esSCLC and mNSCLC patients using Kaplan-Meier log-rank and univariate chi-square and t-tests. Study measures were followed from first diagnosis date of either esSCLC or mNSCLC until the earlier of death or end of the database.

Results

Survival between the cohorts did not differ significantly: mean of 10.4 months for esSCLC patients versus 11.1 months for mNSCLC; median survival was 7.4 months versus 5.9 months. A higher percentage of mNSCLC patients (vs. esSCLC) received radiation therapy (75.6% vs. 65.4%; P < 0.001) and surgery (13.6% vs. 7.8%; P < 0.001) during the metastatic disease period. Conversely, a higher percentage of esSCLC patients than mNSCLC patients received chemotherapy (85.5% vs. 60.3%; P < 0.001), red blood-cell transfusion (20.7% vs. 10.9%; P < 0.001), platelet transfusion (5.6% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.001), and growth-factor support (59.0% vs. 39.5%; P < 0.001). esSCLC patients incurred higher lifetime disease-related costs ($44,167 vs. $37,932; P < 0.001) and all-cause costs ($70,549 vs. $67,176; P < 0.001) than mNSCLC patients.

Conclusions

Lifetime total and disease-related costs per patient were high. Increased use of chemotherapy, supportive care therapies (including growth factors), and disease-related hospitalizations were observed in esSCLC patients as compared with mNSCLC patients. Disease-related and all-cause costs for esSCLC also exceeded those of mNSCLC, except for hospice and skilled nursing services. Survival and per-patient costs for both groups underscore the unmet medical need for more effective therapies in patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0555-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmacologic rationale for early G-CSF prophylaxis in cancer patients and role of pharmacogenetics in treatment optimization

The use of recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) has become an integral part of supportive care during cytotoxic chemotherapy. Current guidelines recommend the use of G-CSF in patients with substantial risk of febrile neutropenia. However, little consensus exists about optimal timing and tailoring of this therapy. Based on the known effects of chemotherapy and G-CSF on bone marrow compartments, we propose a model that supports the prophylactic rather than therapeutic use of G-CSF therapy. In addition, several genetic alterations in G-CSF signalling pathway have been described. These genetic variants may predict the risk of febrile neutropenia and response to G-CSF. Thus, future pharmacogenetic/omics studies in this field are warranted. Through the identification of patients at risk and the knowledge of biological basis for optimal timing, hopefully we should soon be able to improve the application of the existing guidelines for G-CSF therapy and patient's prognosis.

Modeling the Cost Effectiveness of Secondary Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis During Standard-Dose Chemotherapy

Purpose

Current guidelines (ie, by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) do not recommend secondary infection prophylaxis, whereas, in contrast, caregivers prefer secondary prophylaxis to chemotherapy dose reduction after an episode of febrile neutropenia (FN). Because granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is expensive, this study investigates the economic consequences of secondary prophylactic use of different prophylactic strategies (antibiotics, antibiotics plus G-CSF, and a combined sequential approach) in a population at risk of FN, using a Markov model.

Methods

The input for the model is mainly based on the clinical outcome and patient-based cost data set (adopting the health care payer's perspective for the Netherlands) derived from a randomized study on primary prophylaxis in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients; establishing mean cost of an episode FN of €3,290 and prophylaxis of €79 (antibiotics) ± €1,616 (G-CSF) per cycle. The economic analysis was analyzed probabilistically using first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as cost per FN-free cycle.

Results

Secondary prophylaxis with antibiotics was the least expensive strategy (mean, €4,496/patient). The strategy antibiotics plus G-CSF was most expensive (mean, € 8,998/patient). Comparison of these two strategies resulted in an unacceptably high ICER (€343,110 per FN-free cycle) in the Dutch context. In scenarios using higher FN-related costs (as found in the United States), the strategies are less distinct in their monetary effects, but still favor antibiotics.

Conclusion

This model-based economic analysis demonstrates that in the Netherlands and most likely also in the United States, if secondary prophylaxis is preferred, the strategy with antibiotics is recommended.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor to Primary Prophylaxis With Antibiotics in Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

Recently, a Dutch, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated that, in small-cell lung cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) to prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of FN in cycle 1 (24% v 10%; P = .01). We hypothesized that selecting patients at risk of FN might increase the cost-effectiveness of GCSF prophylaxis.

Methods

Economic analysis was conducted alongside the clinical trial and was focused on the health care perspective. Primary outcome was the difference in mean total costs per patient in cycle 1 between both prophylactic strategies. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as costs per percent-FN-prevented.

Results

For the first cycle, the mean incremental costs of adding GCSF amounted to 681 euro (95% CI, −36 to 1,397 euro) per patient. For the entire treatment period, the mean incremental costs were substantial (5,123 euro; 95% CI, 3,908 to 6,337 euro), despite a significant reduction in the incidence of FN and related savings in medical care consumption. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50 euro per percent decrease of the probability of FN (95% CI, −2 to 433 euro) in cycle 1, and the acceptability for this willingness to pay was approximately 50%.

Conclusion

Despite the selection of patients at risk of FN, the addition of GCSF to primary antibiotic prophylaxis did not result in cost savings. If policy makers are willing to pay 240 euro for each percent gain in effect (ie, 3,360 euro for a 14% reduction in FN), the addition of GCSF can be considered cost effective.

Pharmacoeconomics of Systemic Therapies for Lung Cancer

The purpose of this article is to review the economics of systemic therapies for the treatment of lung cancer. Lung cancer treatment is moderately expensive. The overall cost to society is significant given its high incidence. Most analyses in patients with small cell lung cancer focus on supportive care measures. The economics of chemotherapy in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer, as assessed in one study, shows alternating chemotherapy to be cost effective. Numerous economic analyses of chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been completed using varying methodologies in a number of countries. In patients with advanced NSCLC, third generation chemotherapy in the first-line setting can be administered within reasonable incremental cost effectiveness. Single-agent docetaxel chemotherapy in the second-line setting has also been shown to fall within a reasonable cost-effective range. Based on this review, systemic therapies for lung cancer are, for the most part, cost effective. Information on the cost-utility of systemic therapies is more limited. In a population of cancer patients with poor prognosis, the inclusion of quality indicators in the calculation of costs (i.e. cost-utility analyses) will be of great importance to refine our understanding of costs and benefits using a more global approach. Future economic analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy and novel targeted therapies will be of great interest.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by prophylactic antibiotics plus or minus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch Randomized Phase III Study

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy. Antibiotics as well as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are effective in preventing FN. This multicenter randomized phase III trial determines whether the addition of G-CSF to antibiotic prophylaxis can further reduce the incidence of FN in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) at the risk of FN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 175) were stratified for stage of disease, performance status, age, and prior chemotherapy treatment, and were randomly assigned for treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE), followed by prophylactic antibiotics alone (ciprofloxacin and roxithromycin) or by antibiotics in combination with G-CSF on days 4 to 13.

RESULTS

In cycle 1, 20 patients (24%) in the antibiotics group developed FN compared with nine patients (10%) in the antibiotics plus G-CSF group (P = .01). In cycles 2 to 5, the incidences of FN were practically the same in both groups (17% v 11%). Only the treatment parameters (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78) and age (1.067 per year; 95% CI, 1.013 to 1.0124) were related to the probability of FN in cycle 1.

CONCLUSION

Primary G-CSF prophylaxis added to primary antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in reducing FN and infections in SCLC patients at the risk of FN with the first cycle of CDE chemotherapy. For patients with similar risk of FN, the combined use of prophylactic antibiotics plus G-CSF can be considered, specifically in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Impact of five prophylactic filgrastim schedules on hematologic toxicity in early breast cancer patients treated with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide

PURPOSE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy of varying intensity schedules of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim) support in preventing febrile neutropenia in early breast cancer patients treated with relatively high-dose epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (EC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From October 1991 to April 1994, 506 stage I and II breast cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive, in a factorial 2 x 2 design, epirubicin 120 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days for 4 cycles +/- lonidamine +/- G-CSF. The following five consecutive G-CSF schedules were tested every 100 randomly assigned patients: (1) 480 microg/d subcutaneously days 8 to 14; (2) 480 microg/d days 8, 10, 12, and 14; (3) 300 microg/d days 8 to 14; (4) 300 microg/d days 8, 10, 12, and 14; and (5) 300 microg/d days 8 and 12.

RESULTS

All of the G-CSF schedules covered the neutrophil nadir time. Schedule 5 was equivalent to the daily schedules (schedules 1 and 3) and to the alternate day schedules (schedules 2 and 4) with respect to incidence of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (P = .79 and P = .89, respectively), rate of fever episodes (P = .84 and P = .77, respectively), incidence of neutropenic fever (P = .74 and P = .56, respectively), need of antibiotics (P = .77 and P = .88, respectively), and percentage of delayed cycles (P = .43 and P = .42, respectively). G-CSF had no significant impact on the delivered dose-intensity compared with the non-G-CSF arms.

CONCLUSION

In the adjuvant setting, the frequency of prophylactic G-CSF administration during EC could be curtailed to only two administrations (days 8 and 12) without altering outcome. This nonrandomized trial design provides support for evaluating alternative, less intense G-CSF schedules for women with early breast cancer.

Granulocyte colony--stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer : the 40% rule revisited

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) [filgrastim and lenograstim] and pegylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) have been shown to reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia (FN) when administered prophylactically to cancer patients receiving chemotherapeutic regimens. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) evidence-based clinical guidelines published in 1994, 1996 and 1997 recommended primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for cancer patients. The 2000 ASCO update, with the same recommendation, highlights the importance of economic considerations in decision making for CSFs. This paper reviews the available cost-effectiveness evidence on the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis against FN in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Cost-effectiveness ratios from a healthcare payer perspective supported the use of filgrastim as primary prophylaxis for people with SCLC, on the basis of both clinical and economic benefits, treated with chemotherapeutic regimens that have an FN rate in the range of 40-60%. However, when indirect and patient out-of-pocket costs attributable to severe FN are included, available evidence suggests that the risk threshold may be reduced by more than half. Given that FN rates associated with chemotherapeutic regimens for SCLC are generally <40%, then few circumstances would warrant the use of G-CSFs (filgrastim and lenograstim) under the current rule. However, inclusion of indirect costs would lower the cost-effectiveness threshold. Future cost-effectiveness studies of medications such as pegfilgrastim should attempt to capture the societal perspective by incorporating productivity-related costs and using base-case rates of FN reported in the literature.

Economic evaluations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

The prevailing uncertainty about the pharmacoeconomic positioning of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia has resulted in a number of pharmacoeconomic evaluations published in the past 10 years. These studies vary considerably regarding the approaches used and the results presented. In order to contribute to a clearer pharmacoeconomic positioning of G-CSF, a systematic review of economic evaluations was carried out. The focus of the review was prophylaxis and therapy of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer. A computerised bibliography search of several databases was conducted yielding 33 studies. The findings demonstrated the cost-saving potential of G-CSF in standard-dose chemotherapy to be limited, with lower costs often seen in the control group. The results of these studies were too heterogeneous to extract a clear recommendation from a cost-saving point of view. The administration of G-CSF after high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support resulted more often in cost savings in the G-CSF group as compared with standard-dose chemotherapy, illustrating a possible cost-saving potential of G-CSF. In the treatment of established chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, cost savings were found in all studies. This result is surprising but hampered by the small number of studies (n = 5) and remains to be confirmed by more rigourously designed prospective economic analyses. Despite the substantial research on this topic, the economic evaluation of G-CSF is far from being settled and needs further investigation.