Placebo-controlled phase III study of lenograstim (glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: factors influencing chemotherapy administration. Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte

Impact of G-CSF Prophylaxis on Chemotherapy Dose-Intensity, Link Between Dose-Intensity and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, few data are available on the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis and its impact on dose-intensity (DI), or the link between DI and progression-free survival (PFS). This study assessed the impact of G-CSF prophylaxis on the DI received by patients and the relationship between full DI and PFS according to chemotherapy regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients from three first-line randomized phase II clinical trials were included in this retrospective cohort. G-CSF prophylaxis groups were identified and balanced according to baseline characteristics using a propensity score. Patients were classified into 2 treatment groups (FOLFIRINOX vs FOLFIRI/nab-paclitaxel (NAB)). DI was a binary variable (full/reduced). Adverse events were defined using NCI-CTCAE v4.0.

RESULTS

Of the 498 patients, 154 (31%) were in "prophylaxis" group; 179 (36%) were treated by FOLFIRINOX and 319 (64%) by FOLFIRI/NAB. In FOLFIRINOX group, G-CSF prophylaxis was significantly associated with a higher rate of full DI (OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.52-16.90; P < .01) while in FOLFIRI/NAB group, it was significantly associated with a lower rate of full DI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.83; P = .03). Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS (FOLFIRINOX group: HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.16; P = .27; FOLFIRI/NAB group: HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11; P = .22).

CONCLUSION

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was associated with a higher rate of full DI with FOLFIRINOX. Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS. These results need to be confirmed prospectively.

Comparison of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis Using PEGylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Stimulating Factor as a Cost-Effective Measure in Malignant Neoplasms: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PEGylated recombinant human granulocyte-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) as a means of achieving primary and secondary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia cancer cases. Methods: Individuals who underwent PEG-rhG-CSF therapeutics were monitored for 12 months, together with thorough examination of individual medical records for extracting medical care costs. Both prophylaxis-based therapeutic options (primary/secondary) were scrutinized for cost-effectiveness, using a decision-making analysis model which derived the perspective of Chinese payers. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the model. Results: In summary, 130 clinical cases treated using PEG-rhG-CSF prophylaxis were included in this study: 51 within the primary prophylaxis (PP) group and 79 within the secondary prophylaxis (SP) group. Compared with SP, PP-based PEG-rhG-CSF successfully contributed to a 14.3% reduction in febrile neutropenia. In general, PP was estimated to reduce costs by $4,701.81 in comparison to SP, with a gain of 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Equivalent results were found in differing febrile neutropenia (FN) risk subgroups. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for the average time of hospitalization and for the cost of FN. Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese payers, PP with PEG-rhG-CSF should be considered cost-effective compared to SP strategies in patients who received chemotherapy regimens with a middle- to high-risk of FN.

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.

Appropriateness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients receiving chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk level

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level.

METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 86,189 patients received ∼4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1-60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n = 400) and in 70% (64.5-73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 400).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.

Risk of pulmonary toxicity of bleomycin and filgrastim

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative risk of pulmonary toxicity in patients exposed to a bleomycin-based chemotherapy including filgrastim compared to a similar chemotherapy without filgrastim.

METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study of patients treated with BEP (bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) for germ cell cancer or with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine) for Hodgkin's lymphoma at the Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis Hospital between 31 October 2000 and 30 June 2016. The relative risk was estimated by an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) using a propensity score-adjusted regression analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen cases of pulmonary toxicity, representing 14.7% of the 88 patients included in the study, were matched with 65 controls. A higher proportion of women (31.8%) than men (11.3%) developed pulmonary toxicity although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). Within the cohort, two deaths related to lung toxicity were observed among cases where no filgrastim was used. The risk of pulmonary toxicity associated with the addition of filgrastim was not statistically significant (aOR = 2.48 95% CI = 0.50 to 12.19).

CONCLUSION

The results add further evidence that the concomitant use of filgrastim might not increase the risk of pulmonary toxicity of bleomycin. It also suggests that female patients might be more likely to develop this adverse effect. A clinical trial would be needed to confirm this result.

Evidence-Based Use of Colony-Stimulating Factors in Elderly Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Neutropenia and its complications represent the major dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy, especially in the elderly. Hematopoietic growth factors have been shown to reduce the severity and duration of febrile neutropenia (FN) and to sustain chemotherapy dose intensity.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of studies of the relationship between age and the risk of neutropenia and its complications. Recent studies of the "Awareness of Neutropenia in Chemotherapy Study Group" related to the impact of age on neutropenic complications are also summarized.

RESULTS

The risk of FN associated with standard regimens increases with age and appears to be greatest during the first cycle of chemotherapy. FN continues to have a considerable clinical, economic, and quality-of-life impact on affected individuals. The risk of mortality associated with hospitalization with FN also increases with age but is largely associated with the higher rate of comorbidities observed in the elderly population. Despite increasing evidence that elderly patients experience similar benefit from cancer chemotherapy, reductions in dose intensity often compromise response rates and long-term survival. The hematopoietic growth factors reduce the risk of neutropenic events and the need for reduced dose intensity in elderly cancer patients. Primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) reduces the risk of FN and its complications in elderly patients receiving moderately intensive systemic chemotherapy for responsive malignancies. CSFs also appear to reduce cost and improve quality of life in selected elderly patients receiving chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary prophylaxis with CSFs should be considered in elderly patients with responsive and potentially curable malignancies who receive moderately intensive chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients under Taiwan's national health insurance system

RATIONALE, AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The beneficial effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis on reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (CIFN) were well documented throughout the literature. However, existing data regarding its cost-effectiveness were conflicting. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis in CIFN under Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) system.

METHODS

Data on clinical outcomes and direct medical costs were derived for 5179 newly diagnosed breast cancer and 629 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients from the NHI claims database. Patients were further categorized into three subgroups as "primary-", "secondary-" and "no -" prophylaxis based on their patterns of G-CSF use. Generalized estimating equations were applied to estimate the impact of G-CSF use on the incidence of CIFN. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of primary and secondary prophylactic G-CSF use were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Primary prophylaxis of G-CSF decreased the incidence of CIFN by 27% and 83%, while secondary prophylaxis by 34% and 22% in breast cancer and NHL patients, respectively. Compared with those with no prophylaxis, the incremental cost per CIFN reduced in primary prophylaxis is $931 and $52 among patients with breast cancer and NHL, respectively. In contrast, secondary prophylaxis is dominated by no prophylaxis and primary prophylaxis in both cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Primary but not secondary prophylactic use of G-CSF was cost-effective in CIFN in breast cancer and NHL patients under Taiwan's NHI system.

Predicting neutropenia risk in patients with cancer using electronic data

OBJECTIVES

Clinical guidelines recommending the use of myeloid growth factors are largely based on the prescribed chemotherapy regimen. The guidelines suggest that oncologists consider patient-specific characteristics when prescribing granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis; however, a mechanism to quantify individual patient risk is lacking. Readily available electronic health record (EHR) data can provide patient-specific information needed for individualized neutropenia risk estimation. An evidence-based, individualized neutropenia risk estimation algorithm has been developed. This study evaluated the automated extraction of EHR chemotherapy treatment data and externally validated the neutropenia risk prediction model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort of adult patients with newly diagnosed breast, colorectal, lung, lymphoid, or ovarian cancer who received the first cycle of a cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen from 2008 to 2013 were recruited from a single cancer clinic. Electronically extracted EHR chemotherapy treatment data were validated by chart review. Neutropenia risk stratification was conducted and risk model performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy treatment data electronically extracted from the EHR were verified by chart review. The neutropenia risk prediction tool classified 126 patients (57%) as being low risk for febrile neutropenia, 44 (20%) as intermediate risk, and 51 (23%) as high risk. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test = 0.24). Discrimination was adequate and slightly less than in the original internal validation (c-statistic 0.75 vs 0.81).

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy treatment data were electronically extracted from the EHR successfully. The individualized neutropenia risk prediction model performed well in our retrospective external cohort.

The impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors on febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The study aims to assess the relative efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) products administered as primary prophylaxis (PP) to patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified publications (January 1990 to September 2013) of randomized controlled trials evaluating PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, or lipegfilgrastim in adults receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Direct, indirect, and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) were used to estimate the odds ratio and 95 % credible interval of febrile neutropenia (FN) during cycle 1 and all cycles of chemotherapy combined without adjusting for differences in relative dose intensity (RDI) between study treatment arms.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven publications representing 30 randomized controlled trials were included. Using MTC over all chemotherapy cycles, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk. FN risk was also significantly reduced with pegfilgrastim PP versus filgrastim PP. Over all chemotherapy cycles, there was a numerical but statistically nonsignificant increase in the FN risk for lipegfilgrastim PP versus pegfilgrastim PP. Using MTC in cycle 1, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, using MTC without adjustment for RDI, PP with all G-CSFs evaluated reduced the FN risk in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to assess the influence of RDI on FN outcomes and to eliminate potential bias between G-CSF arms receiving more intensive chemotherapy than control arms.

Neutropenia and relative dose intensity on adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy are not associated with survival for resected colon cancer

PURPOSE

Adjuvant folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy for resected high-risk colon cancer is associated with a low risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Neutropenia, however, is a common cause of dose modification or delay with unknown consequences on outcomes. We examined the effect of neutropenia-related and other dose-limiting toxicities and relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin and 5-FU, on relapse-free and overall survival in patients treated with FOLFOX chemotherapy for resected high-risk colon cancer.

METHODS

A chart review was conducted on patients treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency receiving ≥1 cycle of mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy for resected stage II or III colon cancer between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen patients (median age 59 years, 44 % male, 98 % stage III, median follow-up 5.2 years) were included. Ninety percent of the patients experienced any dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), while 58 % of the patients had a neutropenia-related DLT. There were no documented episodes of FN. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) was used in 10 % of the patients. Median relative dose intensity (RDI) was 81 and 85 % for oxaliplatin and 5-FU, respectively. Oxaliplatin and 5-FU RDI were not associated with RFS or OS when analyzed as continuous variables or categorically. Grade II or grade III/IV neutropenia compared to no neutropenia was not associated with RFS or OS.

CONCLUSIONS

DLTs affect the majority of patients on adjuvant FOLFOX for high-risk colon cancer, but RFS and OS do not appear to be affected by the associated lower RDI of oxaliplatin and 5-FU.

Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered by two delivery methods: on-body injector and manual injection with a prefilled syringe

PURPOSE

For patients with clinically significant risk of febrile neutropenia, pegfilgrastim administration should occur the day after myelosuppressive chemotherapy; however, a variety of factors may preclude patients from returning to the clinic the next day for pegfilgrastim administration, necessitating other strategies. This study compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered via an on-body injector applied to the subject's skin versus manual injection using a prefilled syringe.

METHODS

Healthy subjects aged 18-50 years were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 6-mg subcutaneous pegfilgrastim dose from an on-body injector or a prefilled syringe. Blood for pharmacokinetic measurements was collected at baseline and prespecified time points after pegfilgrastim administration; safety was assessed throughout the 6-week study. Primary endpoints were maximum concentration (C max) and area under the concentration curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim mean AUC0-inf values for the on-body injector (n = 125) and manual injection (n = 128) were 10,900 and 11,100 h ng/mL, respectively; mean C max values were 248 and 262 ng/mL, respectively. The least squares geometric mean ratios were 0.97 for C max and 1.00 for AUC0-inf; the corresponding 90 % CIs were within the prespecified range (0.80-1.25), indicating comparable pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics between delivery methods. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar between groups (injector, 86 %; manual, 85 %). Injector- or syringe-related AEs were more prevalent with the injector (13 %; manual, 4 %); none were serious. No pegfilgrastim-neutralizing antibodies were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics and safety were comparable between the on-body injector and manual injection groups.

Modelling chemotherapy effects on granulopoiesis

Background

Although the growth-factor G-CSF is widely used to prevent granulotoxic side effects of cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still unknown since treatment outcome depends on many parameters such as dosing and timing of chemotherapies, pharmaceutical derivative of G-CSF used and individual risk factors. We showed in the past that a pharmacokinetic and –dynamic model of G-CSF and human granulopoiesis can be used to predict the performance of yet untested G-CSF schedules. However, only a single chemotherapy was considered so far.

In the present paper, we propose a comprehensive model of chemotherapy toxicity and combine it with our cell kinetic model of granulopoiesis. Major assumptions are: proportionality of cell numbers and cell loss, delayed action of chemotherapy, drug, drug-dose and cell stage specific toxicities, no interaction of drugs and higher toxicity of drugs at the first time of application. Correspondingly, chemotherapies can be characterized by a set of toxicity parameters which can be estimated by fitting the predictions of our model to clinical time series data of patients under therapy. Data were either extracted from the literature or were received from cooperating clinical study groups.

Results

Model assumptions proved to be feasible in explaining granulotoxicity of 10 different chemotherapeutic drugs or drug-combinations applied in 33 different schedules with and without G-CSF. Risk groups of granulotoxicity were traced back to differences in toxicity parameters.

Conclusion

We established a comprehensive model of combined G-CSF and chemotherapy action in humans which allows us to predict and compare the outcome of alternative G-CSF schedules. We aim to apply the model in different clinical contexts to optimize and individualize G-CSF treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12918-014-0138-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines.

RESULTS

We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for biosimilar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmacoeconomic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.

RESULTS

Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.

CONCLUSION

This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline recommended primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) instead of secondary prophylaxis (SP) for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. We examined the cost-effectiveness of PP when compared with SP.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP to SP for diffuse aggressive lymphoma. We used a Markov model with an eight-cycle chemotherapy time horizon with a government-payer perspective and Ontario health, economic, and cost data. Data for efficacies of G-CSF, probabilities, and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $700,500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses (willingness-to-pay threshold = $100,000/QALY) showed that if PP were to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) had to be more than $31,138 (2.5 × > base case), the cost of G-CSF per cycle less than $960 (base case = $1,960), the risk of first-cycle FN more than 47% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with G-CSF more than 91% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all variables. PSA revealed a 10% probability of PP being cost-effective over SP at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP in this population. PP becomes attractive only if the cost of hospitalization for FN is significantly higher or the cost of G-CSF is significantly lower.

The prophylactic use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor during remission induction is associated with increased leukaemia-free survival of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a joint analysis of five randomised trials on behalf of the EWALL

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used to prevent febrile neutropenia and support intense chemotherapy. However, its impact on long-term outcome in oncological patients including adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) has not been determined so far.

METHODS

In the current study follow-up data from individual patients recruited in five multicentre, prospective, randomised trials were pooled to perform a joint analysis. Among 347 adults and adolescents with ALL, 185 were assigned to receive prophylactically G-CSF along with induction chemotherapy while 162 patients were treated without G-CSF support.

RESULTS

With the median follow-up of 5.3years, there was a tendency towards increased 5year probability of the overall survival for the G-CSF arm compared to the controls (32%±4% versus 23%±4%, p=.07), which reached statistical significance in a subgroup of T-ALL (51%±8% versus 29%±9%, p=.01) and among patients aged 21-40years (44%±6% versus 27%±6%, p=.03). The probability of leukaemia-free survival was 38%±4% and 24%±4% (p=.01) while the median remission duration equalled 33 and 17months (p=.007), respectively. In a multivariate analysis the prophylactic use of G-CSF was independently associated with reduced risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR)=.64, p=.007) and treatment failure (HR=.67, p=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic use of G-CSF during induction of ALL is associated with improved long-term outcome and should be recommended especially in a setting of T-ALL and in 'young adults'. Our analysis provides the first direct evidence coming from prospective trials for the impact of primary G-CSF prophylaxis on disease-free survival of oncological patients.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.

Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence: is direct evidence always more reliable?

OBJECTIVES

To present a case study involving the reduction in incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), illustrating difficulties that may arise when following the common preference for direct evidence over indirect evidence.

METHODS

Evidence of the efficacy of treatments was identified from two previous systematic reviews. We used Bayesian evidence synthesis to estimate relative treatment effects based on direct evidence, indirect evidence, and both pooled together. We checked for inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence and explored the role of one specific trial using cross-validation. A subsequent review identified further studies not available at the time of the original analysis. We repeated the analyses on the enlarged evidence base.

RESULTS

We found substantial inconsistency in the original evidence base. The median odds ratio of FN for primary pegfilgrastim versus no primary G-CSF was 0.06 (95% credible interval: 0.02-0.19) based on direct evidence, but 0.27 (95% credible interval: 0.13-0.53) based on indirect evidence (P value for consistency hypothesis 0.027). The additional trials were consistent with the earlier indirect, rather than the direct, evidence, and there was no inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates in the updated evidence. The earlier inconsistency was due to one trial comparing primary pegfilgrastim with no primary G-CSF. Predictive cross-validation showed that this study was inconsistent with the evidence as a whole and with other trials making this comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the Cochrane Handbook and the NICE Methods Guide express a preference for direct evidence. A more robust strategy, which is in line with the accepted principles of evidence synthesis, would be to combine all relevant and appropriate information, whether direct or indirect.

Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) continues to represent a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and cost in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The reported rates of FN vary considerably among studies depending on the treatment regimen, delivered dose intensity, and patient population. The risk of initial FN appears to be highest during the first cycle of chemotherapy and is greatest in certain high-risk groups including elderly patients and those with various comorbidities. Febrile neutropenia continues to have considerable clinical, economic, and quality-of-life impact on affected patients. The risk of mortality associated with FN continues to be relatively high in patients with hematologic malignancies, patients presenting with comorbid illnesses, and patients with bacteremia, pneumonia, or other infection-related complications. The reduction in chemotherapy dose intensity that frequently follows an episode of FN may have considerable life-threatening impact on disease control in responsive and potentially curable malignancies. The economic burden of FN is substantial, with the greatest proportion of the cost associated with the relatively limited number of patients hospitalized for prolonged periods as a result of comorbidities or complications. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) may reduce the risk and cost associated with cancer treatment by reducing the probability of hospitalization with FN. Primary prophylaxis with the CSFs may be warranted in patients receiving intensive regimens or in those at greater risk because of age or comorbidities. Further study of various risk factors for FN should help identify patients at greatest risk and likely candidates for targeted use of the hematopoietic growth factors.

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.

Acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome in randomized controlled clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and overall mortality in patients receiving chemotherapy with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted.

METHODS

Electronic databases searched through October 2008 identified 3,794 articles for initial screening. Eligibility included solid tumor or lymphoma patients randomly assigned to chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support, > or = 2 years of follow-up, and reporting AML/MDS or all second malignancies. Dual blinded data extraction was performed. Relative risk (RR) and absolute risk (AR) estimates +/- 95% CIs were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

In the 25 eligible RCTs, 6,058 and 6,746 patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy with and without initial G-CSF support, respectively. At mean and median follow-up across studies of 60 and 53 months, respectively, AML/MDS was reported in 22 control patients and 43 G-CSF-treated patients, with an estimated RR of 1.92 (95% CI, 1.19 to 3.07; P = .007) and AR increase of 0.41% (95% CI, 0.10% to 0.72%; P = .009). Deaths were reported in 1,845 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF and in 2,099 controls, for estimates of RR and AR decrease of 0.897 (95% CI, 0.857 to 0.938; P < .001) and 3.40% (95% CI, 2.01% to 4.80%; P < .001), respectively. Greater RR reduction for mortality was seen for both larger studies (P = .05) and greater chemotherapy dose-intensity (P = .012).

CONCLUSION

Delivered chemotherapy dose-intensity and risk of AML/MDS are increased but all-cause mortality is decreased in patients receiving chemotherapy with G-CSF support. Greater reductions in mortality were observed with greater chemotherapy dose-intensity.

Implications of the European Organisation for Research And Treatment Of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for lymphoma care

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially life-threatening complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines recommend use of primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis if the overall FN risk to a patient is >or=20%, or if a reduction in chemotherapy dose intensity correlates with a poorer outcome. Many of the regimens used for treatment of lymphoma, including R-CHOP (rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone), are associated with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Individual patient factors that may increase the risk of FN such as advanced age or advanced disease should be taken into account when assessing the need for G-CSF support. Predictive models are being developed to facilitate individual risk assessment. Additional anti-infective prophylaxis may be indicated in some settings. There is now much evidence for the benefits of G-CSF in reducing the incidence of FN and facilitating delivery of chemotherapy, including dose-escalated and dose-dense (interval-reduced) regimens. If given according to guidelines, G-CSF has the potential to reduce FN and related morbidity. Furthermore, by facilitating delivery of planned chemotherapy, use of G-CSF may potentially influence survival in the curative setting. Implementation of the EORTC guidelines will lead to a greater proportion of patients receiving G-CSFs, but the costs involved should be at least partly offset by a reduction in FN and its associated costs, including those of hospitalization.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; Internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2007). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 eligible randomised controlled trials with 2607 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09) or FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). Prophylaxis significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.71); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10).One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.

Patterns of mortality after prolonged follow-up of a randomised controlled trial using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to maintain chemotherapy dose intensity in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

The effect of utilising granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to maintain chemotherapy dose intensity in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) on long-term mortality patterns has not been formally evaluated. We analysed prolonged follow-up data from the first randomised controlled trial investigating this approach. Data on 10-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from progression (FFP) and incidence of second malignancies were collected for 80 patients with aggressive subtypes of NHL, who had been randomised to receive either VAPEC-B chemotherapy or VAPEC-B+G-CSF. Median follow-up was 15.7 years for surviving patients. No significant differences were found in PFS or OS. However, 10-year FFP was better in the G-CSF arm (68 vs 47%, P=0.037). Eleven deaths from causes unrelated to NHL or its treatment occurred in the G-CSF arm compared to five in controls. More deaths occurred from second malignancies (4 vs 2) and cardiovascular causes (5 vs 0) in the G-CSF arm. Although this pharmacovigilance study has insufficient statistical power to draw conclusions and is limited by the lack of data on smoking history and other cardiovascular risk factors, these unique long-term outcome data generate hypotheses that warrant further investigation.

Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have demonstrated a significant reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) after systemic chemotherapy. Several RCTs have been published recently that investigate the impact of G-CSF on mortality and relative dose-intensity (RDI).

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all reported RCTs comparing primary prophylactic G-CSF with placebo or untreated controls in adult solid tumor and malignant lymphoma patients was undertaken without language restrictions, using electronic databases, conference proceedings, and hand-searching techniques. Two reviewers extracted data independently. Summary estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs were estimated based on the method of Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian and Laird.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs were identified including 3,493 patients. For infection-related mortality, RR reduction with G-CSF compared with controls was 45% (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.90; P = .018); for early mortality (all-cause mortality during chemotherapy period), it was 40% (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.83; P = .002); and for FN, it was 46% (RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67; P < .001). Average RDI was significantly higher in patients who received G-CSF compared with control patients (P < .001). Bone or musculoskeletal pain was reported in 10.4% of controls and 19.6% of G-CSF patients (RR = 4.03; 95% CI, 2.15 to 7.52; P < .001). Significant reductions in FN with G-CSF were observed in studies allowing secondary G-CSF prophylaxis in controls and in the three trials with concurrent prophylactic antibiotics in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic G-CSF reduces the risk of FN and early deaths, including infection-related mortality, while increasing RDI and musculoskeletal pain. There are insufficient data to assess the impact of G-CSF on disease-free and overall survival.

Differences in functional activity and antigen expression of granulocytes primed in vivo with filgrastim, lenograstim, or pegfilgrastim

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is known to affect functional activity and antigen expression of neutrophil granulocytes. Beside nonglycosylated filgrastim and glycosylated lenograstim, pegylated filgrastim (pegfilgrastim) has recently been introduced for single administration into clinical use.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Here, granulocytes from 27 patients with nonmyeloid malignancies were compared functionally (migration, reactive oxygen species production, and G-CSF serum levels) and phenotypically (cell surface antigen expression) before and after G-CSF administration.

RESULTS

After exposure to G-CSF, chemotaxis was reduced significantly in the filgrastim group. Immunophenotypically, in vivo G-CSF-primed granulocytes were more mature in the lenograstim than in the filgrastim and to lesser extent in the pegfilgrastim groups as shown by the expression profile for CD11b, CD14, and CD16. Of note, G-CSF serum levels were similar among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that granulocytes exposed to glycosylated G-CSF in vivo seem to resemble more closely their steady-state phenotype than after treatment with nonglycosylated and to lesser extent pegylated G-CSF.

Community-Based Trial of R-CHOP and Maintenance Rituximab for Intermediate- or High-Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with First-Cycle Filgrastim for Older Patients

BACKGROUND

Administration of full-dose R-CHOP (rituximab/cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone) chemotherapy is important to maximize response in patients with intermediate-or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma but might be difficult in older patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This community-based study was conducted to determine response, toxicity, and disease-free survival in patients with intermediate-or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving R-CHOP with filgrastim. Patients received 6-8 cycles of R-CHOP followed by 4 cycles of maintenance rituximab for responders. Patients aged > 60 years or with increased infection risk received filgrastim 5 microg/kg per day in all R-CHOP cycles; other patients received filgrastim after a neutropenic event (no planned administration for cycle 1).

RESULTS

Of 101 patients enrolled, 60 (59%) were aged > 60 years and received filgrastim in all cycles. Thirty-three patients aged <or= 60 years (80%) received filgrastim, 7 (17%) as primary use in cycle 1. Chemotherapy average relative dose intensity was comparable between age groups (91% > 60 years vs. 93% <or= 60 years). Overall response was similar in both groups (87% > 60 years vs. 95% <or= 60 years; P=0.19); however, the complete response rate was significantly lower for older patients (42% > 60 years vs. 71% <or= 60 years; P=0.005). Seventy-six percent of patients (75% > 60 years vs. 78% <or= 60 years) had no evidence of progression after 2 years of follow-up. Febrile neutropenia (fever >or= 38.3 degrees C with absolute neutrophil count < 500/mm) occurred in 17% of patients overall (22% > 60 years vs. 10% <or= 60 years), and 8% had cycle-1 events (12% > 60 years vs. 2% <or= 60 years).

CONCLUSION

Patients aged > 60 years receiving R-CHOP with filgrastim support in all cycles received comparable doses of chemotherapy and had similar overall response rates compared wtih those of younger patients receiving no preemptive cycle-1 filgrastim.

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.

2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline

PURPOSE

To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSF).

UPDATE METHODOLOGY

The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of pertinent data published from 1999 through September 2005. Guided by the 1996 ASCO clinical outcomes criteria, the Update Committee formulated recommendations based on improvements in survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.

Are prophylactic haematopoietic growth factors of value in the management of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma?

Combination chemotherapy used to treat patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is associated with neutropenia and subsequent infection, hospital admission and treatment delays. Haematopoietic growth factors (HGF) can prevent neutropenia and improve quality of life. We undertook a meta-analysis of six randomised and one nonrandomised trials to quantify the effect in previously untreated patients, and a simple cost-effectiveness analysis. The trials compared HGF plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone. In total, there were 779 patients aged between 15 and 82 years. Haematopoietic growth factors was associated with a statistically significant 44% reduction in the incidence of severe neutropenia (neutrophil count <0.5 × 10⁹ l⁻¹), a 60% reduction in the number of hospital admissions due to infection, an 80% reduction in the number of patients who had a treatment delay due to neutropenia and a 50% reduction in hospital stay. These data together with UK G-CSF drug costs were combined to develop a simple cost-effectiveness model, based on direct costs. Given the current cost of G-CSF, it would only be cost-effective among patients in which high rates of hospital stay due to neutropenia or infection are expected. Alternatively, if the cost could be reduced then all patients may be able to obtain the benefits. However, the evidence that prophylactic HGFs are clinically worthwhile is clear.

The economics of the colony-stimulating factors in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia

Healthcare costs continue to rise with hospitalization representing the single largest component of direct medical costs associated with cancer care. Neutropenia and its complications including febrile neutropenia remain the major dose-limiting toxicity associated with systemic cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia often occurs early in the course of chemotherapy and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality and cost. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) have been used effectively in a variety of clinical settings to prevent or treat febrile neutropenia and to assist patients receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy. A meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has confirmed the efficacy of prophylactic CSFs. Economic models based on measures of resource utilization derived from RCTs have provided estimates of expected treatment costs along with febrile neutropenia risk threshold estimates for the cost saving use of the CSFs. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential value of targeting the CSFs toward patients at greatest risk based on accurate and valid predictive models.

Open-label, randomized study of pegfilgrastim vs. daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Pegfilgrastim is composed of the protein filgrastim to which a 20-kDa polyethylene glycol (PEG) is covalently bound at the N-terminal residue resulting in decreased renal clearance and increased plasma half-life compared with filgrastim. This open-label, randomized, phase 2 study compared two doses of single administration pegfilgrastim (60 and 100 microg/kg) with daily doses of filgrastim (5 microg/kg/day) or no cytokine treatment after standard CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone) chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 50 elderly patients. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade 4 (severe) neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 0.5 x 10(9)/l) in cycle 1. Duration of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 2.2 (SD 1.2), 1.5 (SD 1.1), 0.8 (1.2) and 5.0 (2.0) days for patients who received pegfilgrastim 60 microg/kg, pegfilgrastim 100 microg/kg, filgrastim 5 microg/kg and no cytokine, respectively. The baseline characteristics of the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups were imbalanced with increased bone-marrow involvement and prior therapy in the former. When the treatment groups were balanced for these risk factors, duration of grade 4 neutropenia was comparable with 2.0 and 3.0 vs. 0.6 and 0.5 days for pegfilgrastim 100 microg/kg and filgrastim patients with and without these risk factors, respectively. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (defined as ANC < 0.5 x 10(9)/l and temperature > 38.2degrees C) was low (10% of patients). Pegfilgrastim was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to daily filgrastim. Once per chemotherapy cycle administration of pegfilgrastim was comparable to filgrastim in this clinical setting.

The Genetic Background of Hypertensive, Septic Rats Determines Outcome Improvement With Antibiotic and G-CSF Prophylaxis

Hypertension is proposed as a risk factor among others (high age, diabetes mellitus, and pre- and intraoperative bleeding) for adverse outcomes, such as severe infections, leading to sepsis and to multiple organ failure as the most deleterious complication. Hypertension was modeled with spontaneous hypertensive rats (SHR) and Dahl salt-sensitive (DS) rats and the infective complication by polymicrobial, peritoneal contamination, and infection (PCI). The concept of clinic modeling randomized trials was used to simulate clinical complexity, including a relevant antibiotic prophylaxis in combination with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and clinical trial conditions. Outcome parameters were: survival, systemic cytokines (protein), and organ-specific cytokine levels (mRNA). With low complexity (no prophylaxis), 28% of the animals in the Wistar and 50% in the SHR group survived (P=0.17). Tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels were lower in the liver of SHR vs. Wistar rats with PCI (P<0.01). The anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)-10 was expressed on a higher level in SHR with PCI compared with Wistar rats (P<0.01). With increased complexity (antibiotic and G-CSF prophylaxis) the survival rate was increased from 50% in Wistar rats to 89% in SHR (P<0.01) and the mRNA expression of IL-6 was decreased in the kidney of SHR (P<0.05). Survival rate was 44% in the DS rats vs. 67% of the Wistar rats (P=0.18). The mRNA expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and IL-10 was reduced (P<0.01) by pretreatment in the liver of DS rats with PCI. The hypertensive, genetically distinct SHR and DS rats express different patterns of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine levels after PCI. G-CSF and antibiotic prophylaxis increases only in SHR survival and decreases IL-6 mRNA expression in the kidney significantly.

Impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma: a systematic review

The granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are used to prevent neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in patients with malignant lymphoma. The question as to whether G-CSF/GM-CSF improves dose-intensity, tumour response and overall survival (OS) has not yet been answered. As the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was performed to determine the effectiveness of G-CSF/GM-CSF. Randomized controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF/GM-CSF versus no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy were included. Medical databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase) and conference proceedings were searched. All authors were contacted to obtain missing data. We included 11 studies making a total of 1434 patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, G-CSF/GM-CSF significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for neutropenia [RR 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.75]] febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.62-0.89]) and infection (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.64-0.85]). G-CSF/GM-CSF did not decrease infection-related mortality (RR 2.07 [95% CI 0.81-5.34]), improve complete remission (CR) (RR 1.06 [95% CI 0.96-1.16]) or OS (HR 0.98 [95% CI 0.81-1.18]). In conclusion, G-CSF/GM-CSF given during conventional chemotherapy in malignant lymphoma patients reduced the RR of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, there is no evidence that G-CSF/GM-CSF improved CR and OS in this clinical setting.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and the risk of secondary myeloid malignancy after etoposide treatment

Event-free survival for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) now exceeds 80% in the most effective trials. Failures are due to relapse, toxicity, and second cancers such as therapy-related myeloid leukemia or myelodysplasia (t-ML). Topoisomerase II inhibitors and alkylators can induce t-ML; additional risk factors for t-ML remain poorly defined. The occurrence of t-ML among children who had received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) following ALL remission induction therapy prompted us to examine this and other putative risk factors for t-ML in 412 children treated on 2 consecutive ALL protocols from 1991 to 1998. All children received etoposide and anthracyclines, 99 of whom received G-CSF; 284 also received cyclophosphamide, 58 of whom also received cranial irradiation. There were 20 children who developed t-ML at a median of 2.3 years (range, 1.0-6.0 years), including 16 cases of acute myeloid leukemia, 3 myelodysplasia, and 1 chronic myeloid leukemia. Stratifying by protocol, the cumulative incidence functions differed (P =.017) according to the use of G-CSF and irradiation: 6-year cumulative incidence (standard error) of t-ML of 12.3% (5.3%) among the 44 children who received irradiation without G-CSF, 11.0% (3.5%) among the 85 children who received G-CSF but no irradiation, 7.1% (7.2%) among the 14 children who received irradiation plus G-CSF, and 2.7% (1.3%) among the 269 children who received neither irradiation nor G-CSF. Even when children receiving irradiation were excluded, the incidence was still higher in those receiving G-CSF (P =.019). In the setting of intensive antileukemic therapy, short-term use of G-CSF may increase the risk of t-ML.

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 purpose of this multicenter phase III trial was to assess the impact of a time-intensification of FEC (fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide) and MMM (mitoxantrone, methotrexate, mitomycin C) regimens, supported by lenograstim (G-CSF) on the objective response rate, time to progression and survival of patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic breast cancer (mbc). Women with mbc were randomized to receive as first-line chemotherapy either standard-dose FEC (all doses in mg/m2): arm A (500, 75, 500 every 21 days), or time-intensified FEC-G: arm B (500, 75, 500 every 14 days), or time-intensified MMM-G: arm C (mitoxantrone 10, methotrexate 35 every 14 days and mitomycin C 10 every 28 days), both with support of lenograstim (G-CSF 150 microg/m2/day s.c. for 10 days). All study treatments were administered for six cycles. Eligible female patients were in the 31-70 year range with histologically proven mbc, and measurable or evaluable disease. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed. The overall response rate (CR + PR, intent-to-treat analysis) was significantly improved in the time-intensified FEC-G regimen (69%) in comparison with standard-dose FEC (41%), p=0.002. Time-intensified MMM-G (51%) did not lead to a significant improvement in the response rate. The percentage of complete responses was significantly higher in the FEC-G arm as compared to standard-dose FEC (17% vs. 4.7%; p=0.002). The median duration was longer in the intensified-dose arms without, however, achieving a statistically significant improvement. The median time to progression (TTP), and the median survival time did not differ between the three treatment arms. Grade 3-4 leukopenia was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the standard FEC regimen-treated patients. Thrombocytopenia was significantly higher (p<0.001) in both intensified regimens. Alopecia and mucositis were significantly more frequent in both anthracycline-containing regimens (p=0.003). Other hematological and non hematological toxicities were similar in the 3 treatment arms. The increase of dose-intensity of both FEC and MMM regimens improved activity, but not efficacy as compared to standard FEC regimen in our group of chemotherapy-naive, metastatic breast cancer patients.

Treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with chemotherapy in combination with filgrastim

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) is one of the ten most common cancers in the developed world. The incidence has increased significantly over the past two decades and it is a particular burden in patients over the age of 60 years. The gold standard for primary treatment of aggressive NHL is combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP). Haematological growth factors, such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), can be used to ameliorate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, thus facilitating delivery of chemotherapy at the planned dose intensity. The International Prognostic Index is able to identify high-risk patients who are unlikely to be cured with standard primary chemotherapy. In these patients, the use of dose-intensive therapy, including high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support, is being evaluated as potential primary therapy. Stem cell transplantation is currently the treatment of choice for patients with relapsed NHL or those with chemosensitive refractory disease. Autologous peripheral blood stem cells mobilised into the circulation by G-CSF help achieve rapid haematological reconstitution and are now the preferred source of stem cells over bone marrow for this form of therapy. G-CSF is also used to support allogeneic transplantation, which exerts a therapeutic graft-versus-lymphoma effect. Administration of G-CSF following autologous or allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation accelerates neutrophil recovery.