A multicentre, randomised trial comparing schedules of G-CSF (filgrastim) administration for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer patients is unknown, with 5, 7 or 10 days being commonly prescribed. This trial evaluates whether 5 days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomised, open-label trial, early breast cancer patients who were to receive filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis were randomly allocated to 5 versus 7 versus 10 days of filgrastim for all chemotherapy cycles. A protocol amendment in November 2017 allowed subsequent patients (N = 324) to be randomised to either 5 or 7/10 days. The primary outcome was a composite of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisations. Secondary outcomes included chemotherapy dose reductions, delays and discontinuations. Analyses were carried out by per protocol (primary) and intention-to-treat, and the non-inferiority margin was set at 3% for the risk of having FN and/or hospitalisation per cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Patients (N = 466) were randomised to receive 5 (184, 39.5%), or 7/10 (282, 60.5%) days of filgrastim. In our primary analysis, the difference in risk of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation per cycle was -1.52% [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.22% to 0.19%] suggesting non-inferiority of a 5-day filgrastim schedule compared with 7/10-days. The difference in events per cycle for FN was 0.11% (95% CI: -1.05 to 1.27) while for treatment-related hospitalisations it was -1.68% (95% CI: -2.73% to -0.63%). The overall proportions of patients having at least one occurrence of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation were 11.8% and 14.96% for the 5- and 7/10-day groups, respectively (risk difference: -3.17%, 95% CI: -9.51% to 3.18%). CONCLUSION: Five days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. Given the cost and toxicity of this agent, 5 days should be considered standard of care. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02428114 and NCT02816164.

Optimal sequence of adjuvant endocrine and radiation therapy in early-stage breast cancer - A systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical equipoise exists around the optimal time to start adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients who will receive post-operative radiotherapy for breast cancer. Concerns continue to exist regarding potential reduced efficacy, or increased toxicity, when radiation, and endocrine therapy are administered concurrently. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies comparing outcomes between sequential and concurrent adjuvant radiation and endocrine therapy in early-stage breast cancer. All modalities of radiation therapy were considered, and endocrine therapy could be either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Outcomes of interest included; local, regional or distant recurrence, overall survival and treatment-related toxicities. EVIDENCE REVIEWED: PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to December 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed each citation using the criteria outlined above. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for prospective studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective studies. FINDINGS: Of 2137 unique citations identified, 13 met eligibility criteria. Eleven were unique studies (7569 patients), while 2 of the studies were updated analyses of previous studies. Studies evaluated the timing of adjuvant radiation, and tamoxifen (5 studies, 1550 patients), or aromatase inhibitors (6 studies, 6019 patients). We identified 1 complete randomized clinical trial (150 patients), and 5 retrospective studies (1580 patients), in addition to conference abstracts (5 studies, 5839 patients). Overall, none of the studies showed a significant difference in efficacy, or toxicity, with concurrent versus sequential treatment. However, given the significant heterogeneity of the study populations, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the absence of high quality data, adequately powered randomized trials are required to answer this important clinical question.

Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast or prostate cancer: a prospective multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) is characterized by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2-3 days after taxane-based chemotherapy and lasting up to 7 days. In the absence of validated tools, many studies use the presence of both the myalgia and arthralgia components of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) to define TAPS. The present study prospectively evaluated the frequency, severity, and impact of TAPS in patients with breast or prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, non-randomized study, patients with breast or prostate cancer commencing taxane-based chemotherapy completed the CTCAE (version 4.03), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Taxane (FACT-T), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaires at baseline and once between days 5 and 7 of each chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: From March 2015 to April 1, 2016, 75 patients (breast n = 66, prostate n = 9) were enrolled; 83% received docetaxel and 16% paclitaxel and 1% withdrew. After the first cycle of taxane, TAPS was reported by 25/69 (36.2%) patients; a further 8/69 (18.2%) reporting TAPS after a subsequent chemotherapy treatment. Overall incidence of TAPS was 33/75 (44%). While associated with detrimental scores on FACT-T and BPI as well as increased use of analgesics in 63% (21/33) of patients with TAPS, TAPS did not lead to alterations in chemotherapy dosing. CONCLUSIONS: TAPS is common after taxane-based chemotherapy, and its presence is associated with reduced quality of life and increased analgesic requirements. Prospective patient-reported outcome assessments are crucial to help individualize treatment strategies and improve management of TAPS.

Should de-escalation of bone-targeting agents be standard of care for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: De-escalation of bone-targeted agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, from 4- to 12-weekly dosing is an increasingly used strategy in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. It is unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to support de-escalation as a standard of care. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials comparing standard 4-weekly administration of bone-targeted agents with de-escalated (Q12-weekly) dosing in breast cancer patients was carried out. Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until November 2014 for relevant studies. Outcomes of interest included skeletal-related event (SRE) rates, bone pain, adverse events (AEs) and bone turnover biomarkers. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out. RESULTS: A total of nine citations representing seven unique studies were eligible. One study is ongoing with no reported data. Six studies reported data for at least one outcome of interest. Data were available comparing standard versus de-escalated therapy for pamidronate (1 study, 38 patients), zoledronate (3 studies, 1117 patients) and denosumab (2 studies, 284 patients). Meta-analysis of five trials reporting data for on-study SRE rates between standard (61/443 patients) and de-escalated (49/392 patients) arms produced a summary risk ratio of 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.29). Meta-analyses of data for AEs and bone turnover biomarkers also showed no statistically significant differences between standard and de-escalated arms, though only limited numbers of patients and events were present for most analyses. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review of studies of bisphosphonates and denosumab, there appears to be no difference in SREs or pain with de-escalated therapy. While a large, hopefully definitive study is ongoing, the data presented so far are consistent with de-escalation of bone-targeting agents becoming a standard of care for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.