Association Between Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Use and Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) or Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Among Elderly Patients with Breast, Lung, or Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients diagnosed with cancer have an increased risk both for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) following treatment. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data, we selected patients aged 66 years and older who completed systemic therapy between 2002 and 2014 for breast (stage I-III), lung (stage I-III), or prostate (stage I-IV) cancer. For each cancer, we estimated the risk of a composite endpoint of MDS or AML in patients receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) vs. not. RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative risk difference (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] - no G-CSF) for MDS-AML was 0.45% (95% CI 0.13-0.77%) in breast cancer and 0.39% (95% CI 0.15-0.62%) in lung cancer. G-CSF use was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% CI 1.07-2.40) in breast cancer and 1.50 (95% CI 0.99-2.29) in lung cancer. Filgrastim use was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI 1.00-1.03) per administration in breast cancer and 1.02 (95% CI 0.99-1.05) per administration in lung cancer. Pegfilgrastim was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15) per administration in breast cancer and 1.12 (95% CI 1.00-1.25) per administration in lung cancer. Analyses in prostate cancer were limited because of the low number of events. CONCLUSIONS: The use of G-CSF in patients diagnosed with breast and lung cancer is associated with an increased risk of MDS-AML. However, the MDS-AML absolute risk difference is very low.

Treatment patterns and burden of myelosuppression for patients with small cell lung cancer: A SEER-medicare study.

PURPOSE: To depict the treatment journey for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and evaluate health care resource utilization (HCRU) associated with myelosuppression, a complication induced by chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive, retrospective study of patients with SCLC aged ≥65 years, identified from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data curated between January 2012 and December 2015. Treatment types (chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery) were classified as first, second, or third line, depending on the temporal sequence in which regimens were prescribed. For each year, the proportions of patients completing 4- or 6-cycle chemotherapy regimens, with hospital admissions associated with myelosuppression, or who used granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), blood/platelet transfusions, or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), were calculated. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was administered as initial treatment in 7,807/11,907 (65.6%) patients whose treatment journey was recorded. Approximately one-third (n = 3,985) subsequently received radiation therapy. In total, 5,791 (57.8%) patients completed the guideline-recommended 4-6 cycles of chemotherapy. Among all chemotherapy-treated patients, 10,370 (74.3%) experienced ≥1 inpatient admission associated with myelosuppression (anemia, 7,366 [52.8%]; neutropenia, 4,642 [33.3%]; thrombocytopenia, 2,375 [17.0%]; pancytopenia, 1,983 [14.2%]). Supportive care interventions included G-CSF (6,756 [48.4%] patients), ESAs (1,534 [11.0%]), and transfusions (3,674 [26.3%]). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy remains a cornerstone of care for patients with SCLC. Slightly over half of patients completed the recommended number of cycles, underscoring the frailty of patients and aggressiveness of SCLC. HCRU associated with myelosuppression was prominent, suggesting a substantial burden on older patients with SCLC.

Outcomes of previously untreated elderly patients with AML: a propensity score-matched comparison of clofarabine vs. FLAG.

The 5-year overall survival (OS) in patients ≥ 60 years old with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains < 10%. Clofarabine-based induction (CLO) provides an alternative to low-intensity therapy (LIT) and palliative care for this population, but supporting data are conflicted. Recently, our institution adopted the FLAG regimen (fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) based on data reporting similar outcomes to CLO in elderly patients with AML unable to tolerate anthracycline-based induction. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of patients ≥ 60 years old with AML treated with FLAG or CLO over the past 10 years. We performed a propensity score match that provided 32 patients in each group. Patients treated with FLAG had a higher CR/CRi rate (65.6 vs. 37.5%, P = 0.045) and OS (7.9 vs. 2.8 months, P = 0.085) compared to CLO. Furthermore, FLAG was better tolerated with significantly less grade 3/4 toxicities and a shorter duration of neutropenia (18.5 vs. 30 days, P = 0.002). Finally, we performed a cost analysis that estimated savings to be $30,000-45,000 per induction with FLAG. Our study supports the use of FLAG both financially and as an effective, well-tolerated high-dose treatment regimen for elderly patients with AML. No cases of cerebellar neurotoxicity occurred.

Immunogenicity Assessment of Lipegfilgrastim in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy.

Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting, once-per-cycle, glycopegylated recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) used to prevent neutropenia in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This integrated analysis examined the immunogenicity of lipegfilgrastim and its potential clinical impact in two double-blind randomized studies (phases II and III) of patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Serum samples were analyzed using sequential assays for screening, confirmation, antibody titer, and characterization of antidrug antibodies (ADA). Neutropenia-related efficacy measures were reviewed for each ADA-positive patient. Among 255 patients receiving lipegfilgrastim (154 in phase II, 101 in phase III) and 155 patients receiving pegfilgrastim (54 in phase II, 101 in phase III), the incidence of treatment-emergent ADA was low and similar between the lipegfilgrastim (phase II: 1.3%; phase III: 1.0%) and pegfilgrastim (phase II: 1.9%; phase III: 1.0%) arms. None of the treatment-emergent ADA-positive samples exhibited neutralizing activity against lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or glycosylated G-CSF in a cell-based neutralizing antibody assay. No changes were observed in neutropenia-related efficacy measures among ADA-positive patients, and no treatment-related hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis occurred. These results indicate that there is no apparent impact of ADA on lipegfilgrastim efficacy and safety.

Multivariate Markov models for the conditional probability of toxicity in phase II trials.

In addition to getting a preliminary assessment of efficacy, phase II trials can also help to determine dose(s) that have an acceptable toxicity profile over repeated cycles as well as identify subgroups with particularly poor toxicity profiles. Correct modeling of the dose-toxicity relationship in patients receiving multiple cycles of the same dose in oncology trials is crucial. A major challenge lies in taking advantage of the conditional nature of data collection, that is each cycle is observed conditional on having no previous toxicities on earlier cycles. We develop a novel and parsimonious model for the probability of toxicity during a kth cycle of therapy, conditional on not seeing toxicity in any of the k-1 previous cycles using a Markov model, hereafter we refer to these probabilities as conditional probabilities of toxicity. Our model allows the conditional probability of toxicity to depend on randomized dose group, cumulative dose from prior cycles, a measure of how consistently a patient responds to the same dose exposure and individual risk factors influencing the ability to tolerate the treatment regimen. Simulations studying finite sample properties of the model are given. Finally, the approach is demonstrated in a phase II trial studying two dose levels of ifosfamide plus doxorubicin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in soft tissue sarcoma patients over four cycles. The Markov model provides correct estimates of the probabilities of toxicity in finite sample simulations. It also correctly models the data from the phase II clinical trial, and identifies particularly high cumulative toxicity in females.

Randomized study of granulocyte colony stimulating factor for childhood B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a report from the Japanese pediatric leukemia/lymphoma study group B-NHL03 study.

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the management of childhood B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Patients with advanced-stage mature B-NHL were randomized to receive prophylactic G-CSF (G-CSF+) or not receive G-CSF (G-CSF-) based on protocols of the B-NHL03 study. The G-CSF group received 5 µg/kg/d Lenograstim from day 2 after each course of six chemotherapy courses. Fifty-eight patients were assessable, 29 G-CSF + and 29 G-CSF-. G-CSF + patients showed a positive impact on the meantime to neutrophil recovery and hospital stay. On the other hand, they had no impact in the incidences of febrile neutropenia, serious infections, stomatitis and total cost. Our study showed that administration of prophylactic G-CSF through all six chemotherapy courses for childhood B-NHL showed no clinical and economic benefits for the management of childhood B-NHL treatment.

Chemotherapy-associated treatment burden in breast cancer patients receiving lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim: secondary efficacy data from a phase III study.

PURPOSE: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Noninferiority of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was demonstrated in a phase III trial in chemotherapy (CTx)-naïve breast cancer patients. Secondary outcomes relating to treatment burden are reported here. METHODS: Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) subcutaneously on day 2 of each CTx cycle. Doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) commenced on day 1, for up to four cycles. Secondary end points included days in the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU), use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia (FN) or related infections, and measures of CTx delivery (dose delays, reductions, and omissions). RESULTS: One lipegfilgrastim recipient and two pegfilgrastim recipients were hospitalized in cycle 1 because of FN or associated infection. The lipegfilgrastim-treated patient spent 1 day in the ICU for FN, and the two pegfilgrastim-treated patients were hospitalized for FN for 5 and 6 days, respectively. All hospitalized patients received antibiotics. An additional pegfilgrastim-treated patient received antibiotics but was not hospitalized. Most patients received CTx as scheduled; over 98% received their planned doxorubicin and docetaxel doses in all cycles. In the lipegfilgrastim group, no patients had a CTx dose reduced or omitted; eight patients in the pegfilgrastim group had a CTx dose reduced or omitted during cycles 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of treatment associated with myelosuppressive CTx was similar in breast cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim.

A modified filgrastim regimen does not reduce pain burden compared to pegfilgrastim in women receiving chemotherapy for non-metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The short half-life of filgrastim allows for modification in the dose or duration of prophylaxis to limit inconvenience, adverse effects, and cost. The objectives of this study were to characterize and compare pain and neutropenic events between filgrastim and pegfilgrastim. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was performed. Eligible patients had non-metastatic breast cancer and were to receive adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy with prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia. The prophylaxis used was a fixed-dose regimen of filgrastim 300 µg subcutaneously once daily for 7 days or pegfilgrastim 6 mg subcutaneously for 1 day. Participants completed a pain diary once a day for 14 days commencing the evening of the patient's first chemotherapy. Telephone interviews occurred at two instances within 2 weeks after their first treatment. The primary endpoints of this study were the difference in pain and incidences of neutropenia. Muscle pain, pain burden, and potential risk factors for pain were also explored. RESULTS: A total of 142 women were enrolled, 94 with pegfilgrastim and 48 with filgrastim. Filgrastim was associated with worse joint and muscle pain compared to pegfilgrastim. Joint pain was present in 38 and 26 % of diary entries for filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, respectively (p = 0.009). The mean AUC for joint pain score across 14 days, normalized to 100, were 6.0 for pegfilgrastim and 8.6 for filgrastim in patients receiving non-docetaxel chemotherapy and 14.6 for pegfilgrastim and 21.5 for filgrastim in patients receiving docetaxel-based chemotherapy (p = 0.037). Muscle pain patterns and frequencies were similar to joint pain. There were no statistical differences in febrile neutropenia and neutropenic events. CONCLUSIONS: Both filgrastim and pegfilgrastim caused significant pain burden. A fixed-dose regimen of filgrastim may be effective, but offers no advantage to minimize muscle or joint pain and, in fact, appears to cause greater and more frequent pain.

An interpretive description of chemotherapy-induced premature menopause among Latinas with breast cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe the experience of chemotherapy-induced premature menopause (CIPM) among Latinas, explore how CIPM was assimilated into the breast cancer experience, and relate measured acculturation levels to the CIPM experience. RESEARCH APPROACH: Interpretive descriptive method from a feminist inquiry lens. SETTING: Telephone interviews with participants from 12 states in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 20 Latinas who experienced CIPM after treatment for breast cancer. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: In-depth interviews and the Brief Acculturation Scale for Hispanics were used to elicit data, with interpreter assistance as needed. FINDINGS: One overarching theme, Bigger Than Menopause, and three subthemes, Experiencing Menopause, Ever-Changing Landscape, and Working Through the Experience, were found. PARTICIPANTS' ability to assimilate CIPM into the breast cancer experience was affected by the magnitude of physiologic and psychosocial effects, access to health care, information and support, sense of control, and acculturation level. CONCLUSIONS: The CIPM experience for Latinas with breast cancer is multifaceted, with less acculturated Latinas facing multiple barriers in accessing health care, treatment, information, and support. INTERPRETATION: PARTICIPANTS described CIPM as part of a larger context that included physiologic and psychosocial effects and affected participants' ability to assimilate CIPM into the breast cancer experience. The impact of low acculturation and barriers experienced were elucidated as factors associated with assimilating CIPM into the breast cancer experience.

Long-active granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization.

INTRODUCTION: Peg-filgrastim (PEG-FIL), a polyethylene glycol-conjugated form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), has been introduced in clinical practice and is effective in shortening the time of neutropenia after cytotoxic chemotherapy. G-CSF has emerged as the preferred cytokine for hematopoietic progenitor cells' (HPC) mobilization. Nevertheless, data on the ability of PEG-FIL in this field have been published. AREAS COVERED: We review publications in the field with the goal of providing an overview of this approach. EXPERT OPINION: PEG-FIL may be able to mobilize CD34(+) cells in a more timely fashion than G-CSF, with the advantages of only a single-dose administration, an earlier start and a reduction in the number of apheresis procedures. The main controversies concern the dosage of the drug and the optimal dose. In the context of chemo-mobilization, a single dose of 6 mg PEG-FIL seems effective in terms of HPC's mobilization and there is no increase in this effect if the dose is doubled to 12 mg. Steady-state mobilization requires higher doses of PEG-FIL and this approach is not cost-effective when compared with G-CSF. The experiences with PEG-FIL in the healthy donor setting are very limited.

An assessment of the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of GCPGC, a novel pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), in healthy subjects.

INTRODUCTION: A pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is effective in reducing the severity and duration of neutropenia. This study was performed to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and tolerability of GCPGC, a new formulation of pegylated G-CSF, in healthy volunteers and to compare them with those of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). METHODS: Twenty-five healthy Korean male volunteers randomly received a single subcutaneous (SC) GCPGC injection at a dose of 30 (n = 10), 100 (n = 10), or 300 (n = 5) µg/kg or placebo in a 4:1 ratio in a double-blind manner. Additionally, 8 subjects received a SC dose of pegfilgrastim at 100 µg/kg. Blood samples were collected up to 14 days after both therapies. The absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and CD34(+) cell counts were the PD markers. RESULTS: After GCPGC administration, 4 different pharmacokinetic phases were identified, indicating target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) for the elimination of GCPGC, which was slowed down as the dose was increased, resulting in a higher than proportional dose-normalized exposure to GCPGC. Although GCPGC was cleared faster than pegfilgrastim, leading to a 19 % lower systemic exposure to pegylated G-CSF, the increase in ANC and CD34(+) were ~20 % greater by GCPGC at 100 µg/kg than pegfilgrastim. Thrombocytopenia, splenomegaly, and hemoperitoneum occurred in one subject in the 300 µg/kg GCPGC group, which resolved completely with appropriate care. CONCLUSIONS: GCPGC showed a non-linear TMDD. The PK-PD characteristics of GCPGC at 30-100 µg/kg were comparable to those of pegfilgrastim at 100 µg/kg. GCPGC at 30-100 µg/kg was well tolerated in healthy Korean males.

Clinical experience with Zarzio® in Europe: what have we learned?

Biosimilars are similar, but non-identical, versions of existing biological drugs for which patents have expired. Despite the rigorous approval process for biosimilars, concerns have been expressed about the efficacy and safety of these products in clinical practice. Biosimilars of filgrastim, based on the originator product Neupogen®, have been available since 2008 and are now in widespread clinical use in Europe and elsewhere. Three biosimilar G-CSFs have been approved based on a combination of physicochemical and biological protein characterisation, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment in healthy volunteers and efficacy and safety data in patients with cancer. To assess whether biosimilars are effective in the real-world clinical practice setting, a pooled analysis of five post-approval studies of biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio®) that included 1,302 adult patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy with G-CSF support for the prevention of neutropenia was conducted. A total of 36 % of patients had a febrile neutropenia risk of >20 %, while 39.6 % had a risk of 10-20 % based on chemotherapy regimen. The occurrence of severe or febrile neutropenia was within the range of that observed in previous studies of originator G-CSF. In addition, the safety profile of Zarzio® was consistent with that reported for originator G-CSF and the known safety profile of G-CSF. Initial concerns about the use of biosimilars, at least with regard to biosimilar G-CSFs, appear to be unfounded. Adoption of cost-effective biosimilars should help reduce healthcare costs and improve patient access to biological treatments.

[Assessment of Hungarian ESA and G-CSF treatments to national and international guidelines and protocols]. / A hazai ESA- és G-CSF-felhasználási szokások összehasonlítása a nemzetközi ajánlásokkal és a hazai protokollokkal.

Chemotherapy induced neutropenia (CIN), febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy induced anemia (CIA) frequently occur following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and are associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and relative dose intensity (RDI), hence influencing overall survival (OS). Given prophylactically, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can stimulate neutrophil production and depletion, they may thus reduce FN incidence when following chemotherapy. Erythropoietins are widely used to treat chemotherapy induced anemia. Several guidelines have been published to help onco-hematologists design their supportive therapy. The aim of our study was to assess the guidelines concerning everyday routine in supportive care. The final conclusion is that the Hungarian therapy support guidelines are up to date, are highly compliant with international standards [ASCO (1), EORTC (2), ESMO (3, 4), NCCN (5-7)], and that the clinicians have a deep understanding and comprehensive usage in their everyday practice.

Impact of age group on febrile neutropenia risk assessment and management in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP regimens.

UNLABELLED: Improving the management of elderly patients with lymphoma is of increasing relevance. One thousand one hundred thirteen patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) received rituximab (R)-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin [hydroxydaunorubicin], vincristine [Oncovin], and prednisone) in an observational study. Both older and younger patients failed to receive growth factor support in accordance with international guidelines; patients 65 years and older were more susceptible to febrile neutropenia (FN) and its consequences. Better application of guidelines could reduce rates of FN and improve outcomes. BACKGROUND: The incidence of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is increasing in the elderly population, which is a more challenging population to treat because of comorbidities and enhanced sensitivity to chemotherapy toxicities. This analysis evaluated the impact of age group on assessment of febrile neutropenia (FN) risk, supportive care management, and chemotherapy delivery. METHODS: The IMPACT non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) trial was an observational study conducted in Europe and Australia. This analysis included 1113 patients with DLBCL treated with rituximab (R)-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin [hydroxydaunorubicin], vincristine [Oncovin], and prednisone) every 14 days (n = 409) or every 21 days (n = 704). Outcomes were reported for ages < 65 years and ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome in this analysis was the proportion of patients assessed by investigators as having an overall high (≥ 20%) FN risk who received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis. RESULTS: For R-CHOP-14, investigators assessed 78% of younger patients and 80% of older patients with ≥ 20% risk of FN, although 14% of younger and 19% of older high-risk patients did not receive G-CSF primary prophylaxis. For R-CHOP-21, investigators assessed 52% of younger and 71% of older patients with ≥ 20% risk of FN; however, 61% of younger and 47% of older high-risk patients did not receive G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Regardless of chemotherapy regimen, rates of FN and unplanned hospitalization were higher in older patients, and delivery of chemotherapy was poorer. CONCLUSION: Adherence to G-CSF guidelines in patients assessed with high FN risk was suboptimal in patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP chemotherapy, with substantial proportions of both younger and older patients receiving R-CHOP-21 failing to receive optimal G-CSF support. Better application of guidelines could reduce FN rates and improve outcomes.

Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: High-dose or dose-intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy often causes myelosuppression and severe neutropenia among cancer patients. Severe neutropenia accompanied by fever, named febrile neutropenia (FN), is the most serious manifestation of neutropenia usually requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. FN and neutropenia can lead to chemotherapy treatment delays or dose reductions, which potentially compromises the effectiveness of cancer treatment and prospects for a cure. Granulocyte-macrophage (GM) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are administered during chemotherapy in order to prevent or reduce the incidence or the duration of FN and neutropenia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in reducing the incidence and duration of FN, and all-cause and infection-related mortality during chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, International Health Technology Assessment, SOMED, AMED and BIOSIS up to 8 August 2011. We also searched three Chinese databases (VIP, CNKI, CBM), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and OpenGrey.eu up to August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSFs (any dose) with placebo or no treatment in patients with breast cancer at any stage, at risk of developing FN while undergoing any type of chemotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Trial authors were contacted for further details when information was unclear. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs involving 2156 participants with different stages of breast cancer and chemotherapy regimens. The trials were carried out between 1995 and 2008 and judged as being at least at moderate risk of bias. The strength of the evidence was weak for the majority of outcomes, which was mostly because of the small numbers of evaluable patients, varying definitions, as well as unclear measurements of the trials' outcomes and uncertain influences of supportive treatments on them. In most trials, the chemotherapy regimens had a risk of FN that was below the threshold at which current guidelines recommend routine primary prophylaxis with CSFs. Using CSFs significantly reduced the proportion of patients with FN (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12) but there was substantial heterogeneity which can be explained by possible differential effects of G-CSFs and GM-CSFs and different definitions of FN. A significant reduction in early mortality was observed in CSF-treated patients compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.77; NNTB 79). This finding was based on 23 fatal events in 2143 patients; wherein 19 of these 23 events occurred in one study and 17 events were attributed to progression of the disease by the study authors. For infection-related mortality, there were no significant differences between CSF and control groups (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). In CSF-treated patients, the risk for hospitalization was significantly reduced (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.30; NNTB 13), as well as the use of intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; NNTB 18). The risks of severe neutropenia, infection or not maintaining the scheduled dose of chemotherapy did not differ between CSF-treated and control groups. CSFs frequently led to bone pain (RR 5.88; 95% CI 2.54 to 13.60; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 3) and injection-site reactions (RR 3.59; 95% CI 2.33 to 5.53; NNTH 3). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, CSFs have shown evidence of benefit in the prevention of FN. There is evidence, though less reliable, of a decrease of all-cause mortality during chemotherapy and a reduced need for hospital care. No reliable evidence was found for a reduction of infection-related mortality, a higher dose intensity of chemotherapy with CSFs or diminished rates of severe neutropenia and infections. The majority of adverse events reported from CSF use were bone pain and injection-site reactions but no conclusions could be drawn regarding late-term side effects.

Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg. METHODS: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries. RESULTS: The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

Bone pain from granulocyte colony stimulating factor: does clinical trial sponsorship by a pharmaceutical company influence its reporting?

It is alleged that pharmaceutical companies sometimes unfairly present clinical trial results. To our knowledge, studies have not explored whether such alleged unfair reporting also occurs in the testing of palliative care agents in cancer patients, a particularly vulnerable group. Therefore, a systematic search was conducted to retrieve all published, prospective clinical trials that used granulocyte colony stimulating factor starting in 2003. Because granulocyte colony stimulating factor can cause severe bone pain - a concerning but historically under-reported symptom in cancer patients - this symptom was assessed to determine whether differences in reporting occurred based on pharmaceutical company-sponsorship. A total of 239 published clinical trials met the present study's eligibility criteria and were retrievable. Within this entire group of studies, 65 (27%) were pharmaceutical company-sponsored, and only 31 (13%) reported on bone pain. However, pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials reported on bone pain at a higher rate compared with other studies: 23% versus 9% (P= 0.005), and this conclusion did not change after adjusting for dose, use of the slow release formulation and year of publication. The reporting of adverse events from cancer symptom control and palliative care interventions should be improved - especially in trials not sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

Review of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the treatment of established febrile neutropenia.

PURPOSE: To assess the value of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in promoting recovery from established episodes of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in cancer patients. METHOD: The literature was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and IPA databases. Reference lists from the retrieved papers and hand searches of relevant journals complemented the search. Eleven randomized controlled trials were selected for review. RESULT: G-CSF use in established FN appears to be limited to a small reduction in neutropenia duration, length of hospitalization, and duration of antibiotic use. Overall, there are no significant reductions in time to neutrophil recovery and fever resolution. The cost analyses performed do not show significant cost savings. CONCLUSION: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are biological agents typically used for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) or as adjunctive treatment with antibiotics of established FN. Most clinical guidelines discourage the general use of G-CSF for adjunctive treatment of ongoing neutropenic fever; however, its use in special situations, such as high-risk for infectious complications or adverse prognostic factors, is advised. G-CSF should be reserved for high-risk cancer patients, in accordance with the results of this review. This recommendation needs to be taken with caution in view of the disparities and methodological flaws found among trials. It is necessary to design further trials appropriately, well-powered and focused on high-risk patients. Moreover, it is necessary to perform an appropriate economic evaluation for this setting.

Standard- versus high-dose lenograstim in adults with hematologic malignancies for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective, multicenter study was to compare high- versus standard-dose lenograstim after chemotherapy in collecting target dose of CD34+ peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) in adult candidates for autologous transplant. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 166 consecutive patients (28 acute leukemias [ALs], 77 lymphomas, 61 multiple myeloma [MM]) underwent 182 mobilization procedures. Only the first were analyzed. The CD34+ cell target was at least 2×10(6) , 4×10(6) , and 8×10(6) /kg and lenograstim started on days +19, +1, and +5 from the end of chemotherapy for AL, lymphomas, and MM, respectively. Eighty-seven and 79 patients, respectively, received 5 and 10µg/kg/day lenograstim subcutaneously (sc). An analysis to evaluate factors predicting satisfactory procedures and outcome of transplants performed with first-mobilization-procedure PBPCs was conducted. Most patients received 6mg of pegfilgrastim or 5µg/kg/day lenograstim sc after transplant. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, high-dose lenograstim (p=0.053) in MM and male sex (p=0.028) were positive predictive factors for reaching cell target. Fludarabine negatively influenced stimulation length (p=0.002). Apheresis, CD34+ cells mobilized and collected, blood volume processed, side effects, transplants performed, and engraftment time were similar between lenograstim cohorts. Pegfilgrastim versus lenograstim delayed platelet (PLT) recovery times (13 days vs. 11 days, p=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose lenograstim more efficiently mobilized MM patients requiring the highest PBPC target but did not influence transplants performed and engraftment time. Male patients mobilized more efficiently. Fludarabine negatively influenced stimulation length. Finally, pegfilgrastim seems to delay PLT recovery.