A comparison of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy (RECOVER): A Phase 3 study.

Eflapegrastim (Rolontis® ) is a novel, long-acting hematopoietic growth factor consisting of a recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. We report results from a second pivotal, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Patients with Stage I to IIIA early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) administered one day after standard docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) therapy for four cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (NI) of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; Grade 4) in Cycle 1. A total of 237 eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either eflapegrastim (n = 118) or pegfilgrastim (n = 119). Cycle 1 severe neutropenia was observed in 20.3% (n = 24) of patients receiving eflapegrastim and 23.5% (n = 28) receiving pegfilgrastim. The DSN of eflapegrastim in Cycle 1 was noninferior to pegfilgrastim with a mean difference of -0.074 days (NI P-value < .0001). Noninferiority was maintained throughout the four treatment cycles (P < .0001 in all cycles). Other efficacy endpoints results were comparable between treatment arms, and adverse events, irrespective of causality and grade, were comparable between treatment arms. The results demonstrate noninferior efficacy and comparable safety for eflapegrastim, at a lower G-CSF dose, vs pegfilgrastim. The potential for the increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study.

An open-label, dose-ranging study of Rolontis, a novel long-acting myeloid growth factor, in breast cancer.

This randomized, open-label, active-controlled study investigated the safety and efficacy of three doses of Rolontis (eflapegrastim), a novel, long-acting myeloid growth factor, versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients being treated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC). The primary efficacy endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during the first cycle of treatment. Patients who were candidates for adjuvant/neoadjuvant TC chemotherapy were eligible for participation. TC was administered on Day 1, followed by 45, 135, or 270 µg/kg Rolontis or 6 mg pegfilgrastim on Day 2. Complete blood counts were monitored daily when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) fell to <1.5 × 109 /L. Up to four cycles of TC were investigated. The difference in DSN (time from ANC <0.5 × 109 /L to ANC recovery ≥2.0 × 109 /L) between the Rolontis and pegfilgrastim groups was -0.28 days (confidence interval [CI]: -0.56, -0.06) at 270 µg/kg, 0.14 days (CI: -0.28, 0.64) at 135 µg/kg, and 0.72 days (CI: 0.19, 1.27) at 45 µg/kg. Noninferiority to pegfilgrastim was demonstrated at 135 µg/kg (P = 0.002) and 270 µg/kg (P < .001), with superiority demonstrated at 270 µg/kg (0.03 days; P = 0.023). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were bone pain, myalgia, arthralgia, back pain, and elevated white blood cell counts, with similar incidences across groups. All doses of Rolontis were well tolerated, and no new or significant treatment-related toxicities were observed. In Cycle 1, Rolontis demonstrated noninferiority at the 135 µg/kg dose and statistical superiority in DSN at the 270 µg/kg dose when compared to pegfilgrastim.

Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer: final results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is associated with poor survival. Platinum-based chemotherapy is often a first-line treatment. Pemetrexed has shown single-agent activity in SCCHN and in combination with cisplatin for other tumors. This trial examined the efficacy of pemetrexed-cisplatin for SCCHN. METHODS: In a double-blind phase 3 trial, patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN and no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease were randomized to pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) ) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) ; n = 398) or placebo plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) ; n = 397) to assess overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Median OS was 7.3 months in the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 6.3 months in the placebo-cisplatin arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.02; P = .082). Median progression-free survival (PFS, months) was similar in both treatment arms (pemetrexed-cisplatin, 3.6; placebo-cisplatin, 2.8; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.03; P = .166). Among patients with performance status 0 or 1, pemetrexed-cisplatin (n = 347) led to longer OS and PFS than placebo-cisplatin (n = 343; 8.4 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.83; P = .026; 4.0 vs 3.0 months; HR, 0.84; P = .044, respectively). Among patients with oropharyngeal cancers, pemetrexed-cisplatin (n = 86) resulted in longer OS and PFS than placebo-cisplatin (n = 106; 9.9 vs 6.1 months; HR, 0.59; P = .002; 4.0 vs 3.4 months; HR, 0.73; P = .047, respectively). Pemetrexed-cisplatin toxicity was consistent with studies in other tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed-cisplatin compared with placebo-cisplatin did not significantly improve survival for the intent-to-treat population. However, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, pemetrexed-cisplatin showed OS and PFS advantage for patients with performance status 0 or 1 or oropharyngeal cancers.