Considerations for Use of Hematopoietic Growth Factors in Patients With Cancer Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Impact of PEG-GCSF in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Single Center Experience and Literature Review

BACKGROUND/AIM

The COVID-19 pandemic brought many challenges in healthcare systems globally. Pegylated granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-GCSF) is recommended to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN), however there are a few reports that G-CSF might worsen COVID-19 disease, and its appropriate use during the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the association between PEG-GCSF use and COVID-19 infection and severity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Breast cancer patients who received chemotherapy at the Nagoya Tokushukai General Hospital between October 2020 and April 2023 were included. Patients with suspected COVID-19 symptoms during each chemotherapy cycle underwent COVID-19 antigen testing. To assess the potential impact of PEG-GCSF on COVID-19 severity, we collected data on patient background, chemotherapy regimens, PEG-GCSF use, COVID-19 antigen tests, and COVID-19 infection from their medical records.

RESULTS

Thirty patients received chemotherapy. In total, 71 cycles were administered comprising adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC; 37 cycles), docetaxel (DTX; 26 cycles) and docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC; eight cycles). Among those patients, suspected COVID-19 symptoms were observed in only one of 62 cycles of the three regimens (1.6%) with PEG-GCSF compared to two of nine cycles (22.2%) without PEG-GCSF (p=0.0405). However, because none developed COVID-19 infection during chemotherapy, we could not assess COVID-19 severity and PEG-GCSF use.

CONCLUSION

A potential role of PEG-GCSF in reducing suspected COVID-19 symptoms during chemotherapy, reducing the anxiety and need for hospital visits, thus improving patients' quality of life, is suggested. These insights could contribute to optimizing the care of breast cancer patients in situations like the current pandemic.

Clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease in patients with breast cancer treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor following chemotherapy: Triangulation of evidence using population-based cohort and Mendelian randomization analyses

Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in patients with cancer and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains controversial. Concerns exist that it may worsen COVID-19 outcomes by triggering an inflammatory cytokine storm, despite its common use for managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) or febrile neutropenia post-chemotherapy. Here, we determined whether prophylactic or therapeutic G-CSF administration following chemotherapy exacerbates COVID-19 progression to severe/critical conditions in breast cancer patients with COVID-19. Between December 2022 and February 2023, all 503 enrolled breast cancer patients had concurrent COVID-19 and received G-CSF post-chemotherapy, with most being vaccinated pre-chemotherapy. We prospectively observed COVID-19-related adverse outcomes, conducted association analyses, and subsequently performed Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to validate the causal effect of genetically predicted G-CSF or its associated granulocyte traits on COVID-19 adverse outcomes. Only 0.99% (5/503) of breast cancer patients experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization following prophylactic or therapeutic G-CSF administration after chemotherapy. No mortality or progression to severe/critical COVID-19 occurred after G-CSF administration. Notably, no significant associations were observed between the application, dosage, or response to G-CSF and COVID-19-related hospitalization (all p >.05). Similarly, the MR analyses showed no evidence of causality of genetically predicted G-CSF or related granulocyte traits on COVID-19-related hospitalization or COVID-19 severity (all p >.05). There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the notion that the prophylactic or therapeutic administration of G-CSF after chemotherapy for managing CIN in patients with breast cancer and COVID-19 would worsen COVID-19 outcomes, leading to severe or critical conditions, or even death, especially considering the context of COVID-19 vaccination.

How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?

Background

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are serious complications of myelosuppressive chemotherapy and present a considerable burden to patients with cancer. Febrile neutropenia is associated with increased risks of infection and hospitalization, a particular concern during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Oncology nurses and advanced practice providers (APPs; including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses, and pharmacists) play a vital role in the management of patients with cancer and the prevention of infections.

Objectives

The objectives of this article are to summarize the burden of chemotherapy-related neutropenia and FN in patients with cancer in the US and to evaluate the role of oncology nurses and APPs in preventing and managing FN.

Methods

This article provides a narrative review of US studies reporting on the burden of FN, FN during COVID-19, adherence to guidelines for the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), the involvement of oncology nurses in FN prevention, management, and patient quality of life, and inappropriate and/or incomplete G-CSF treatment.

Findings

Despite advances in supportive care for patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, neutropenia and FN present a considerable burden to patients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncology nurses and APPs play a vital role in the appropriate and timely delivery of supportive care, which can improve patient outcomes and minimize treatment costs.

A prospective, real-world, multinational study of febrile neutropenia (FN) occurrence in oncology patients receiving chemotherapy with intermediate risk of FN: a MASCC Neutropenia, Infection, and Myelosuppression Study Group initiative

PURPOSE

Limited knowledge is available on the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in intermediate-risk patients and the rationale for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in these patients. We aimed to estimate the rate at which patients associated with intermediate risk (10-20%) of FN would develop ≥ 1 episode of FN with a commonly used chemotherapy regimen in clinical practice.

METHODS

This prospective, real-world, observational, multinational, multicenter study (December 2016-October 2019) recruited patients with solid tumors or Hodgkin's/non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Patients receiving chemotherapy with intermediate risk of FN, but not G-CSF as primary prophylaxis were included and observed for the duration of the chemotherapy (≤ 6 cycles and ≤ 30 days after the last chemotherapy administration).

RESULTS

In total, 364 patients (median age, 56 years) with 1601 cycles of chemotherapy were included in the analysis. The incidence of FN was 5% in cycle 1, 3% in cycles 2-3, and 1% in cycles 4-6. The rate of patients with ≥ 1 episode of FN was 9%, and 59% of FN events were reported during cycle 1. The rate of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 11%, and 15% of patients experienced ≥ 1 episode of grade 4 neutropenia.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the incidence of FN was low, with a high incidence in cycle 1 and a decrease in the subsequent cycles. These results provide the real FN risk for common chemotherapy regimens in patients generally excluded from clinical trials. Prophylactic G-CSF in intermediate-risk patients could be considered as per clinician's judgement.

The Role of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Biosimilars for Supportive Cancer Care: A Year in Review

This year-in-review article provides insights into clinical updates relating to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars research presented at five key congresses in 2022. These include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 55th Annual Meeting (3rd–7th June 2022, Chicago, Illinois, USA), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress (9th–13th September 2022, Paris, France), ESMO Asia Congress (2nd–4th December 2022, Singapore), San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS; 6th–10th December 2022, Texas, USA), and American Society of Hematology (ASH) 64th Annual Meeting and Exposition (10th–13th December 2022, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA). Alongside reviewing the current research presented at these key congresses, with a focus on the use of G-CSF agents and biosimilars in patients undergoing treatment for breast, colorectal, and gynaecological cancers, this article provides an overview of current guidelines on the use of G-CSF in supportive cancer care to manage chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and explores trends in G-CSF biosimilars research.

Afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: an international survey spots oncologists’ routine clinical practice versus the standard of care and the impact of COVID-19

Introduction

Afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia represents a frequent clinical situation where chemotherapy protocol, patient’s comorbidities, and disease status determine the risk of infection hence the management plan. Internationally distributed, this questionnaire aims to evaluate the routine practice and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia management.

Material and methods

Coordinators from Egypt, Morocco, Azerbaijan, and Russia developed a 12-item questionnaire using Google forms to explore how oncologists deal with afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The link to the survey was available internationally through social media and to their local societies over the period from July to September 2021.

Results

We received 151 responses from 4 world regions: 58.9, 9.9, 11.3, and 15.2% from the Mena area, Russia, Europe, and Asia. The responses deviated from the guideline-driven practice as G-CSF was the most chosen option for intermediate risk that was statistically different based on the academic background of the treating physician. Half of the responders ignored patients and disease risk factors in the intermediate-risk cases that trend was statistically different based on the geographical distribution. The steroid was a valid option for intermediate and low-risk as per oncologists practicing in Russia. COVID-19 pandemic positively affected the rate of prescription of G-CSF as expected.

Conclusion

The disparities in the routine practice of oncologists based on their geographical and academic backgrounds highlight the need to analyze the underlying obstacles that hinder guideline-based practice like workload or lack of the proper knowledge.

G-CSF primary prophylaxis use and outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major dose-limiting toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and several patients receiving chemotherapy are at intermediate risk of developing FN. However, the guidelines remain less clear regarding the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for this population and insights about real-world prophylaxis patterns and FN outcomes are needed.

AREAS COVERED

This scoping review summarizes the variability in real-world G-CSF prophylaxis treatment patterns, incidence of FN, and associated outcomes among patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate risk of FN. G-CSF PP use varied across the included studies (N = 23). Overall, there was a trend for reduced FN incidence among patients who received G-CSF PP vs. those who did not. G-CSF PP was also associated with a lower incidence of FN-related dose delays and reductions and fewer hospitalization days. Gaps in the literature of real-world studies exist, particularly around incorporating FN risk factor assessment, patient-reported outcomes, and health economic outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Further studies are warranted to determine the impact of G-CSF PP use on clinical, quality of life, and economic outcomes in patients with intermediate FN risk, which could optimize care for this subgroup of patients, resulting in better population-based FN-related outcomes.

Treatment of drug-induced immune thrombocytopenias

Several therapeutic agents can cause thrombocytopenia by either immune-mediated or non-immune-mediated mechanisms. Non-immune-mediated thrombocytopenia is due to direct toxicity of drug molecules to platelets or megakaryocytes. Immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, on the other hand, involves the formation of antibodies that react to platelet-specific glycoprotein complexes, as in classic drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP), or to platelet factor 4, as in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Clinical signs include a rapid drop in platelet count, bleeding or thrombosis. Since the patient's condition can deteriorate rapidly, prompt diagnosis and management are critical. However, the necessary diagnostic tests are only available in specialized laboratories. Therefore, the most demanding step in treatment is to identify the agent responsible for thrombocytopenia, which often proves difficult because many patients are taking multiple medications and have comorbidities that can themselves also cause thrombocytopenia. While DITP is commonly associated with an increased risk of bleeding, HIT and VITT have a high mortality rate due to the high incidence of thromboembolic complications. A structured approach to drug-associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis can lead to successful treatment and a lower mortality rate. In addition to describing the treatment of DITP, HIT, VITT, and vaccine-associated immune thrombocytopenia, this review also provides the pathophysiological and clinical information necessary for correct patient management.

Treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with non-hematologic malignancies

Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is a common complication of the treatment of non-hematologic malignancies. Many patient-related variables (e.g., age, tumor type, number of prior chemotherapy cycles, amount of bone marrow tumor involvement) determine the extent of CIT. CIT is related to the type and dose of chemotherapy, with regimens containing gemcitabine, platinum, or temozolomide producing it most commonly. Bleeding and the need for platelet transfusions in CIT are rather uncommon except in patients with platelet counts below 25x10⁹/L in whom bleeding rates increase significantly and platelet transfusions are the only treatment. Nonetheless, platelet counts below 70x10⁹/L present a challenge. In patients with such counts, it is important to exclude other causes of thrombocytopenia (medications, infection, thrombotic microangiopathy, post-transfusion purpura, coagulopathy and immune thrombocytopenia). If these are not present, the common approach is to reduce chemotherapy dose intensity or switch to other agents. Unfortunately decreasing relative dose intensity is associated with reduced tumor response and remission rates. Thrombopoietic growth factors (recombinant human thrombopoietin, pegylated human megakaryocyte growth and development factor, romiplostim, eltrombopag, avatrombopag and hetrombopag) improve pretreatment and nadir platelet counts, reduce the need for platelet transfusions, and enable chemotherapy dose intensity to be maintained. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines permit their use but their widespread adoption awaits adequate phase III randomized, placebo-controlled studies demonstrating maintenance of relative dose intensity, reduction of platelet transfusions and bleeding, and possibly improved survival. Their potential appropriate use also depends on consensus by the oncology community as to what constitutes an appropriate pretreatment platelet count as well as identification of patient-related and treatment variables that might predict bleeding.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF biosimilars in patients at intermediate/high risk of febrile neutropenia

Background: Real-world data suggests superiority of pegfilgrastim (PEG) over filgrastim (FIL) in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), probably attributable to underdosed FIL in practice. We used real-world data to assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PEG versus FIL in cancer patients at intermediate-to-high risk of FN from a US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with lifetime horizon. Results: For the high-risk group, PEG (vs FIL) biosimilars resulted in 0.43 FN events prevented (FNp), 0.27 quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYg) and a cost saving of USD$5703. For the intermediate-risk group, PEG biosimilar led to 0.18 FNp and 0.12 QALYg, at USD$9674/FNp and USD$14,502/QALYg. Conclusion: PEG biosimilars may provide opportunities to optimize FN management in patients with intermediate-to-high FN risk.

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

Prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in patients with lung neuroendocrine carcinoma receiving platinum agents plus etoposide

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients receiving platinum agents plus etoposide for neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is unknown.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with NEC who received platinum agents plus etoposide were retrospectively evaluated. The occurrence of severe neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and efficacy of chemotherapy were compared between patients who did (G-CSF group) and did not receive prophylactic G-CSF (non-G-CSF group).

RESULTS

Among 58 patients, 51 (87.9%) and 7 (12.1%) had small-cell lung cancer and large-cell NEC, respectively, and 24 (41.4%) and 34 (58.6%) received cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively. The G-CSF and non-G-CSF groups included 32 and 26 patients, respectively. The non-G-CSF group displayed significantly higher rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia {88.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 69.8% - 97.6%] vs. 56.2% [95% CI = 37.7% - 73.6%], P = 0.009} and FN [50.9% (95% CI = 30% - 70%) vs. 18.8% (95% CI = 7.2% - 36.4%), P = 0.023] than the G-CSF group. In multivariate analysis, non-G-CSF was an independent risk factor for grade 3-4 neutropenia and FN. The rate of treatment delay was significantly higher in the non-G-CSF group (69.2% vs. 31.2%, P = 0.001). The relative dose intensity was significantly higher in the G-CSF group (86.7% vs. 74.1%, P < 0.001). The overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NEC receiving platinum agents plus etoposide, prophylactic G-CSF significantly reduced the risks of severe neutropenia and FN.

Trends in Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Following Introduction of Biosimilars Among Adults With Cancer and Commercial or Medicare Insurance From 2014 to 2019

IMPORTANCE

The introduction of biosimilars and novel delivery devices between 2014 and 2019 may have changed the utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF).

OBJECTIVE

To assess utilization trends of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with commercial or Medicare insurance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study assessed G-CSF utilization trends overall and stratified by regimen febrile neutropenia risk level. Associations between patient characteristics and G-CSF use were evaluated. Patients with cancer, including breast, lung, colorectal, esophageal and gastric, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses were included from the 2014 to 2019 commercial insurance and 2014 to 2018 Medicare fee-for-service claims databases. Data were analyzed from March to June 2021.

EXPOSURES

Year of chemotherapy initiation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were use and trends of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis, from completion to 3 days after in the first chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

In total, 86 731 chemotherapy courses (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [11.5] years; 57 838 [66.7%] women and 28 893 [33.3%] men) were identified from 82 410 patients in the commercial insurance database and 32 398 chemotherapy courses (mean [SD] age, 71.8 [8.3] years; 18 468 [57.0%] women and 13 930 [43.0%] men) were identified from 30 279 patients in the Medicare database. Among the commercially insured population, 39 639 patients (45.7%) received G-CSFs, and 12 562 patients (38.8%) received G-CSFs among Medicare insured patients. Overall G-CSF use increased significantly throughout the study period in both populations, from 45.1% (95% CI, 44.4%-45.7%) of patients in 2014 to 47.5% (95% CI, 46.5%-48.5%) of patients in 2019 (P = .001) in the commercially insured population and from 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-38.0%) of patients in 2014 to 39.1% (95% CI, 38.1%-40.1%) of patients in 2018 (P < .001) in the Medicare population. The greatest increases in G-CSF use were observed among patients with high FN risk, from 75.0% (95% CI, 74.1%-76.0%) of patients to 83.2% (95% CI, 82.0%-84.2%) of patients (P < .001) among the commercially insured population and 75.3% (95% CI, 71.8%-78.6%) of patients to 86.2% (95% CI, 84.7%-87.6%) of patients (P < .001) among the Medicare population. Use of G-CSFs decreased in the commercially insured population among patients with intermediate FN risk (from 27.5% [95% CI, 26.4%-28.5%] of patients to 20.4% [95% CI, 19.1%-21.7%] of patients; P < .001) or low FN risk (from 19.3% [95% CI, 18.3%-20.4%] of patients to 16.3% [95% CI, 14.7%-18.0%] of patients; P < .001) and remained stable in the Medicare population (intermediate risk: from 26.4% [95% CI, 23.8%-29.2%] of patients to 28.4% [95% CI, 27.0%-29.8%] of patients; P = .35; low risk: from 19.6% [95% CI, 17.0%-22.4%] of patients to 20.9% [95% CI, 19.6%-22.3%] of patients; P = .58). Factors associated with increased odds of G-CSF use included older age (commercial insurance: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.50 [95% CI, 1.41-1.59]; Medicare: aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.08-1.71]), receiving a regimen with high FN risk (commercial insurance: aOR, 16.01 [95% CI, 15.17-16.90]; Medicare: aOR, 17.17 [95% CI, 15.76-18.71]), and history of neutropenia (commercial insurance: 3.90 (3.67-4.15); Medicare: 3.82 (3.50-4.18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found that utilization of G-CSFs increased among patients with cancer with high FN risk in both a commercially and Medicare-insured population, but 14% to 17% of patients still did not receive preventive treatment.

Use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in the US: A review of adherence to present guidelines for usage

Evidence-based US guidelines provide recommendations for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as supportive therapy in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is recommended for FN prophylaxis in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving a high-risk chemotherapy regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen if one or more risk factors are present. The guidelines highlight the patient characteristics and chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies that may influence a patient's overall risk of FN and may benefit from pegfilgrastim support. This review aimed to evaluate how pegfilgrastim use in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in routine clinical practice aligns with evidence-based US guidelines. Examination of the literature revealed widespread deviation in relation to under- and over-prescribing, and timing of administration in US clinical practice. Pegfilgrastim is often over-prescribed in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy and those at low risk of FN. Potential under-prescribing of pegfilgrastim was also observed. In this literature search, data that appear to support same-day administration of pegfilgrastim were from uncontrolled studies that were limited in size. Analyses of healthcare claims data clearly favored next-day use, with statistically significant increases in FN incidence among patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim versus those treated 1-4 days post-chemotherapy. Earlier-than-recommended administration typically occurs at the physician's discretion where next-day administration might present barriers to the patient receiving supportive therapy.There is a need to ensure appropriate prescribing to optimize patient outcomes, as deviation from the guideline recommendations was associated with increased incidence of FN and hospitalization.

Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy reduces the usage of supportive care interventions for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: Pooled analysis of three randomized phase 2 trials

Background

Supportive care interventions used to manage chemotherapy‐induced myelosuppression (CIM), including granulocyte colony‐stimulating factors (G‐CSFs), erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents (ESAs), and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, are burdensome to patients and associated with greater costs to health care systems. We evaluated the utilization of supportive care interventions and their relationship with the myeloprotective agent, trilaciclib.

Methods

Data were pooled from three independent randomized phase 2 clinical trials of trilaciclib or placebo administered prior to chemotherapy in patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC). The impact of supportive care on the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), occurrence of severe neutropenia (SN), and occurrence of RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was analyzed across cycles 1–4. Concordance and association between grade 3/4 anemia, RBC transfusions on/after week 5, and ESA administration was also evaluated.

Results

The use of G‐CSFs, ESAs, or RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was significantly lower among patients receiving trilaciclib versus placebo (28.5% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.0001; 3.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.0254; and 14.6% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.0252, respectively). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib significantly reduced DSN and SN, irrespective of G‐CSF administration. RBC transfusions and ESAs were most often administered in patients with grade 3/4 anemia; however, patients typically received RBC transfusions over ESA administration.

Conclusions

By improving CIM and reducing the need for associated supportive care, trilaciclib has the potential to reduce the burden of myelosuppression on patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the treatment of ES‐SCLC.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02499770; NCT03041311; NCT02514447).

Neutropenia in adult acute myeloid leukemia patients represents a powerful risk factor for COVID-19 related mortality

Patients with hematological malignancies are at risk for poor outcomes when diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It remains unclear whether cytopenias and specific leukemia subtypes play a role in the clinical course of COVID-19 infection. Here, we report outcomes and their clinical/laboratory predictors for 65 patients with acute and chronic leukemias diagnosed with COVID-19 between 8 March 2020 and 19 May 2020 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Most patients had CLL (38%) or AML (26%). A total of 14 (22%) patients required high flow nasal cannula or were intubated for mechanical ventilation and 11 patients (17%) died. A diagnosis of AML (OR 4.7, p=.028), active treatment within the last 3 months (OR 5.22, p=.047), neutropenia within seven days prior and up to 28 days after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (11.75, p=.001) and ≥3 comorbidities (OR 6.55, p=.019) were associated with increased odds of death.

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types.

METHODS

A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

Improving Outcomes of Chemotherapy: Established and Novel Options for Myeloprotection in the COVID-19 Era

Chemotherapy-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HPSCs) often results in myelosuppression that adversely affects patient health and quality of life. Currently, chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is managed with chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and lineage-specific supportive care interventions, such as hematopoietic growth factors and blood transfusions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for the optimal management of myelosuppression. In this review, we discuss the impact of this side effect on patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a focus on the prevention of myelosuppression in the COVID-19 era. During the COVID-19 pandemic, short-term recommendations on the use of supportive care interventions have been issued with the aim of minimizing the risk of infection, reducing the need for hospitalization, and preserving limited blood supplies. Recently, trilaciclib, an intravenous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, was approved to decrease the incidence of myelosuppression in adult patients when administered prior to platinum/etoposide-containing or topotecan-containing chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Approval was based on data from three phase 2 placebo-controlled clinical studies in patients with ES-SCLC, showing that administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy significantly reduced multilineage myelosuppression, with patients receiving trilaciclib having fewer chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and myelosuppression/sepsis-related hospitalizations, and less need for supportive care interventions, compared with patients receiving placebo. Several other novel agents are currently in clinical development for the prevention or treatment of multilineage or single-lineage myelosuppression in patients with various tumor types. The availability of treatments that could enable patients to maintain standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens without the need for additional interventions would be valuable to physicians, patients, and health systems.

The Impact of Baseline Risk Factors on the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy with Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis: A Real-World Data Analysis

Background: There are sparse data addressing whether standard risk factors for febrile neutropenia (FN) are relevant in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and primary prophylaxis for FN, which would have implications for variables to consider during real-world comparative analyses of FN incidence. Objective: To assess the impact of baseline patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk on the incidence of FN in patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic pegfilgrastim identified January 1, 2017-May 31, 2018 from MarketScan® research databases. The outcomes were defined as incidence of FN in the first cycle and among all cycles of chemotherapy using three different definitions for FN. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations models were used to compare outcomes among patients with and without patient-specific risk factors and among those receiving regimens categorized as high-, intermediate-, or other-risk for FN (low-risk or undefinable by clinical practice guidelines). Results: A total of 4460 patients were identified. In the first cycle of therapy, patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were at up to 2 times higher risk for FN across all definitions than those receiving high-risk regimens (P<0.01). The odds ratio for main FN among patients with ≥4 versus 0 risk factors was 15.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5, 169.4; P<0.01). Patients with ≥3 FN risk factors had significantly greater risks for FN across all cycles of treatment than those with no risk factors; this was true for all FN definitions. Discussion: The choice of FN definition significantly changed the impact of risk factors on the FN outcomes in our study, demonstrating the importance of evaluating all proxies for true FN events in a database study. This is particularly important during real-world study planning where potential missteps may lead to bias or confounding effects that render a study meaningless. Conclusions: In patients with BC receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk levels are determinants of FN risk. In real-world studies evaluating FN incidence, it is imperative to consider and control for these risk factors when conducting comparative analyses.

Prophylaxis and treatment strategies for optimizing chemotherapy relative dose intensity

INTRODUCTION

A decrease in relative-dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes in solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The actual delivered chemotherapy dose received by patients can be influenced by dose reductions and treatment delays, often due to toxicities, most commonly chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN).

AREAS COVERED

We review seminal evidence and more recent studies that have shown an association between higher RDI and improved patient survival. A smaller number of studies has shown no association between RDI and outcomes. These differences may be due to study limitations, including low power, differences in patient and disease characteristics, or the chemotherapeutic regimen. We describe guidelines recommendations to prevent and treat CIN with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and describe novel approaches to prevent neutropenia that are being developed that may provide greater value and be associated with fewer adverse events than standard G-CSF options.

EXPERT OPINION

Maintaining RDI is important to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This can be achieved through the proper administration of G-CSF prophylaxis and treatment. Newer agents in development to treat and/or prevent CIN are entering regulatory review and may potentially change the treatment landscape for CIN in the future.

Economic Analysis on Adoption of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Nonmyeloid Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Within the Oncology Care Model Framework

Value-based programs, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), seek to improve care for patients undergoing chemotherapy, while reducing total costs. The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of adopting biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for febrile neutropenia (FN) primary prophylaxis (PP) from a US practice perspective.