Isatuximab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear. METHODS: In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.).

Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide and bortezomib frontline exposure has raised a growing need for novel treatments for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib in combination with daratumumab has shown substantial efficacy with tolerable safety in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in a phase 1 study. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, 466 patients recruited from 102 sites across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma were randomly assigned 2:1 to carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD) or carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd). All patients received twice per week carfilzomib at 56 mg/m2 (20 mg/m2; days 1 and 2 during cycle 1). Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg weekly for the remaining doses of the first two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients received 40 mg dexamethasone weekly (20 mg for patients ≥75 years old starting on the second week). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention to treat. Adverse events were assessed in the safety population. This trial (NCT03158688) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 466 patients of 569 assessed for eligibility were enrolled. After median follow-up of approximately 17 months, median progression-free survival was not reached in the KdD group versus 15·8 months in the Kd group (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·46-0·85; p=0·0027). Median treatment duration was longer in the KdD versus the Kd group (70·1 vs 40·3 weeks). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 253 (82%) patients in the KdD group and 113 (74%) patients in the Kd group. The frequency of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was similar in both groups (KdD, 69 [22%]; Kd, 38 [25%]). INTERPRETATION: KdD significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus Kd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and was associated with a favourable benefit-risk profile. FUNDING: Amgen.

Carfilzomib or bortezomib with melphalan-prednisone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The phase 3 CLARION study compared carfilzomib-melphalan-prednisone (KMP) with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Patients were randomized 1:1 to KMP or VMP for nine 42-day cycles (C). Patients received carfilzomib on days (D) 1, 2, 8, 9, 22, 23, 29, 30 (20 mg/m2: C1D1, C1D2; 36 mg/m2 thereafter) or bortezomib on D1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32 (1.3 mg/m2; D4, 11, 25, 32 omitted for C5-9). Melphalan (9 mg/m2) and prednisone (60 mg/m2) were administered on D1-4. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Nine hundred fifty-five patients were randomized (intention-to-treat population: KMP, n = 478; VMP, n = 477). Median PFS was 22.3 months with KMP vs 22.1 months with VMP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.906; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.746-1.101; P = .159). Median overall survival was similar and not reached in either group (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.82-1.43). Overall response rate was 84.3% for KMP and 78.8% for VMP. Complete response rate was 25.9% for KMP and 23.1% for VMP. Minimal residual disease-negative rates were 15.7% (KMP) and 15.5% (VMP). Adverse events (AEs) of interest (any grade) occurring with a ≥5% higher patient incidence in the KMP arm were acute renal failure (13.9% [KMP] vs 6.2% [VMP]) and cardiac failure (10.8% vs 4.3%). Grade ≥3 AE rates were 74.7% (KMP) and 76.2% (VMP). Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy was lower for KMP vs VMP (2.5% vs 35.1%). Treatment with KMP in CLARION did not yield a statistically significant difference in PFS vs VMP. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01818752.

A Study of Novel Febrile Neutropenia Risk Factors Related to Bone Marrow or Immune Suppression, Barrier Function, and Bacterial Flora.

Background: Previously identified patient-level risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) indicate several potential underlying pathogenic mechanisms, including bone marrow suppression, impaired neutrophil function, or disturbances of barrier function. This study evaluated whether additional clinical characteristics related to these pathogenic mechanisms were risk factors for FN. Patients and Methods: The study population included patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, or gastric cancer between 2000 and 2009 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California and treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Those who received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or antibiotics were excluded. Potential risk factors of interest included surgery, radiation therapy, selected dermatologic/mucosal conditions, and use of antibiotics and corticosteroids. All data were collected using electronic medical records. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate associations between these factors and risk of FN in the first chemotherapy cycle, and adjusted using propensity score-based functions. Results: A total of 15,971 patients were included. Of these, 4.3% developed FN in the first chemotherapy cycle. Use of corticosteroids was significantly associated with increased risk of FN (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-1.98). Selected dermatologic/mucosal conditions and intravenous antibiotic use were marginally associated with increased risk of FN (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.98-1.93, and 1.35; 95% CI, 0.97-1.87, respectively). Surgery, radiation therapy, and oral antibiotic use were not statistically significantly associated with FN. Conclusions: Dermatologic or mucosal conditions that might affect barrier integrity and use of corticosteroids and intravenous antibiotics prior to chemotherapy may increase risk of FN and should be considered in prophylaxis use and FN prediction modeling.

A systematic literature review of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of filgrastim.

PURPOSE: Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®) is the originator recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor widely used for preventing neutropenia-related infections and mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells. This report presents findings of a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of originator filgrastim to update previous reports. METHODS: A literature search of electronic databases, congress abstracts, and bibliographies of recent reviews was conducted to identify English-language reports of clinical trials and observational studies evaluating filgrastim in its US-approved indications up to February 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed titles/abstracts and full texts of publications, and extracted data from studies that compared originator filgrastim vs placebo or no treatment. For outcomes with sufficient homogeneous data reported across studies, meta-analysis was performed and relative risk (RR) determined. Data were summarized descriptively for all other evaluated outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1194 unique articles evaluating originator filgrastim were identified, with 25 meeting eligibility criteria for data extraction: 18 randomized controlled trials, 2 nonrandomized clinical trials, and 5 observational studies. In chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN), filgrastim vs placebo or no treatment significantly reduced febrile neutropenia incidence (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53-0.75) and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia incidence (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37-0.68). The most commonly reported adverse event (AE) with filgrastim was bone pain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.29-5.27 in CIN). Additional efficacy and safety outcomes are described within indications. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis confirms and updates previous reports on the efficacy and safety of originator filgrastim. Bone pain was the commonly reported AE associated with filgrastim use.

A Randomized, Single-Blind Study Evaluating the Effect of a Bone Pain Education Video on Reported Bone Pain in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy and Pegfilgrastim.

BACKGROUND: Mild-to-moderate bone pain is the most commonly reported adverse event associated with pegfilgrastim. AIMS: To investigate the effect of bone pain education on pegfilgrastim-related bone pain in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blind study. SETTINGS: Forty-eight community oncology clinics throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred women ≥18 years of age with newly diagnosed stage I -III breast cancer, who were planning ≥4 cycles of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support starting in cycle 1. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to view a general education DVD on chemotherapy side effects (GE-DVD) or a DVD on bone pain following chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim (BP-DVD). Patients recorded severity of bone pain on a scale of 0-10, location of pain, and use of bone pain medications (i.e., analgesics, antihistamines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for 5 days, beginning on the day of pegfilgrastim administration, in each of the first four chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: Patient-reported maximum bone pain was similar in the two groups (GE-DVD vs BP-DVD: cycle 1, 3.2 vs. 3.5, p = .3479; across all cycles, 4.1 vs. 4.6, p = .2196). Other measures of bone pain were also similar between the groups. Bone pain was highest in cycle 1 but decreased and then remained stable in subsequent cycles. Bone pain medication use was similar in both groups and was highest in cycle 1. CONCLUSIONS: The bone pain-specific education evaluated here did not improve perceptions of bone pain reported in this patient population.

Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Associated With Select Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy Regimens in a Large Community-Based Oncology Practice.

Background: NCCN has classified commonly used chemotherapy regimens into high (>20%), intermediate (10%-20%), or low (<10%) febrile neutropenia (FN) risk categories based primarily on clinical trial evidence. Many chemotherapy regimens, however, remain unclassified by NCCN or lack FN incidence data in real-world clinical practice. Patients and Methods: We evaluated incidence proportions of FN and grade 4 and 3/4 neutropenia during the first chemotherapy course among patients from Kaiser Permanente Southern California who received selected chemotherapy regimens without well-established FN risk. Patients given granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis were excluded. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for FN misclassification and censoring. Results: From 2008 to 2013, 1,312 patients with breast cancer who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC; n=853) or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH; n=459); 1,321 patients with colorectal cancer who received capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX; n=401) or leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX6; n=920); 307 patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received bendamustine with or without rituximab; and 181 patients with multiple myeloma who received lenalidomide with or without dexamethasone were included. Crude FN risk was >20% for both breast cancer regimens (TC and TCH). Crude FN risks for XELOX, FOLFOX6, bendamustine, and lenalidomide were <10%; however, when potential FN misclassification and censoring were considered, FN risks were >10%. Conclusions: Our results support published literature highlighting the real-world, "high" FN risk of the TC and TCH regimens for breast cancer. There is strong suggestive evidence that FN risks for XELOX, FOLFOX6, bendamustine, and lenalidomide are >10%. Calculation of chemotherapy course-level FN incidence without controlling for differential censoring for patients who discontinued regimens early, or possible FN misclassification, might have resulted in bias toward an underestimation of the true FN risk. These findings help define FN risk of the selected regimens in the real-world setting and inform prophylactic G-CSF use.

Relationship between severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and risk of infection among patients with nonmyeloid malignancies.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) may increase infection risk for cancer patients; however, there is limited understanding on the quantitative relationships between severity and duration of CIN and infection risk. METHODS: This study combined individual data from adult cancer patients receiving no granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during the first chemotherapy cycle in six trials. We used area over the curve (AOC) of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) time-response curve (below different thresholds) to measure the combined effect of severity and duration of CIN. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models quantified the hazard of first infection associated with duration of grade 4 or grade 3/4 CIN and the hazard associated with AOC. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 271 patients who had small cell lung cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, head and neck cancer, or breast cancer; 63.8 % of the patients had advanced cancer, and 77.5 % received chemotherapy regimens with high risk of febrile neutropenia. In the first cycle, 18.8 % of the patients had infection-related hospitalizations. Each additional day patients had grade 3/4 or grade 4 CIN was associated with 28 % (95 % CI 7, 51 %) and 30 % (95 % CI 10, 54 %) increased risk of infection-related hospitalization, respectively. Each unit increase in AOC (day × 10(9)/L ANC), with threshold of ANC < 0.5 × 10(9)/L, was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.98; 95 % CI 1.35, 2.90). CONCLUSIONS: Infection risk increases dramatically with each additional day of grade 3 or 4 CIN. Interventions limiting CIN severity and duration are of critical importance to reduce infection risk in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of carfilzomib-based regimens in frail patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.

Frailty is most prevalent among elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, and frail patients have a higher risk of poor outcomes due to reduced performance status or comorbidities. This post hoc analysis assessed efficacy and safety of carfilzomib combinations in frail patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM from the phase 3 ASPIRE (carfilzomib [27 mg/m2]-lenalidomide-dexamethasone [KRd27] vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone [Rd]), ENDEAVOR (carfilzomib [56 mg/m2]-dexamethasone [Kd56] vs bortezomib-dexamethasone [Vd]), and ARROW (once-weekly carfilzomib [70 mg/m2]-dexamethasone [Kd70] vs carfilzomib [27 mg/m2]-dexamethasone [Kd27]) studies. A frailty algorithm incorporating age, Charlson comorbidity index, and performance status classified patients as fit, intermediate, or frail. Results are presented for frail patients (ASPIRE, n = 196; ENDEAVOR, n = 330; ARROW, n = 141). In ASPIRE, median progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval) was 24.1 (KRd27) vs 15.9 months (Rd) (0.78; 0.54-1.12); median overall survival (OS) was 36.4 vs 26.2 months (0.79; 0.57-1.08). In ENDEAVOR, median PFS was 18.7 (Kd56) vs 6.6 months (Vd) (0.50; 0.36-0.68); median OS was 33.6 vs 21.8 months (0.75; 0.56-1.00). In ARROW, median PFS was 10.3 (once-weekly Kd70) vs 6.6 months (twice-weekly Kd27) (0.76; 0.49-1.16). In all 3 studies, rates of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with those observed in the primary studies. The ASPIRE, ENDEAVOR, and ARROW primary analyses demonstrated favorable benefit-risk profiles with carfilzomib-containing regimens compared with controls. Across clinically relevant subgroups, including those by frailty status, consistent efficacy and safety were observed with KRd27, Kd56, and weekly Kd70, and treatment with these regimens should not be restricted by frailty status.

Once-weekly (70 mg/m2 ) vs twice-weekly (56 mg/m2 ) dosing of carfilzomib in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A post hoc analysis of the ENDEAVOR, A.R.R.O.W., and CHAMPION-1 trials.

Combination of carfilzomib with dexamethasone (Kd) is approved for use in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), with carfilzomib administered twice weekly at 56 mg/m2 (Kd56 BIW) or once weekly at 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 QW). Post hoc cross-trial comparisons were performed to compare efficacy and safety profiles of Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW dosing schedules using data from three trials of patients with RRMM: A.R.R.O.W., CHAMPION-1, and ENDEAVOR. To select for comparable patient populations, side-by-side efficacy and safety comparisons were performed in subgroups of patients with 2-3 prior lines of therapy who were not refractory to bortezomib. The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7-77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI, 65.9-78.2) for Kd56 BIW. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.4-14.3) for Kd70 QW and 14.5 months (95% CI, 10.2-not evaluable) for Kd56 BIW. Frequency of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 67.6% for Kd70 QW and 85.3% for Kd56 BIW. Regression analyses (adjusting for prognostic factors) of all patients in the trials who received Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW estimated a PFS hazard ratio of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-1.19; P = .47) and an ORR odds ratio of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.74-1.69; P = .61). These results suggest that Kd70 QW has a comparable efficacy profile compared with Kd56 BIW and represents a convenient and well-tolerated treatment for patients with RRMM.

Oprozomib, pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: This phase Ib study evaluated oprozomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor, plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received oprozomib once-daily on days 1 to 5 and 15 to 19 (5/14 schedule; 150 mg/day starting dose) or on 2 consecutive days weekly (2/7 schedule; 210 mg/day starting dose) of 28-day cycles, pomalidomide on days 1 to 21 (4 mg/day starting dose), and dexamethasone 20 mg on 2 consecutive days weekly. A 3 + 3 dose-escalation schema was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were treated (5/14, n = 4; 2/7, n = 27). Oprozomib maximum tolerated dose was not defined. The 2/7 schedule (oprozomib 210 mg/day, pomalidomide 4 mg/day) was selected for dose expansion based on overall safety (n = 17). In this group, the most common adverse events (AEs) were gastrointestinal (diarrhea [88.2%], nausea [58.8%], and vomiting [58.8%]); grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal AEs were uncommon. The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were hematologic (anemia [47.1%], neutropenia [35.3%], and thrombocytopenia [29.4%]). One dose-limiting toxicity (gastric hemorrhage) occurred; 3 patients discontinued owing to AEs. The overall response rate was 70.6%. CONCLUSION: Safety and pharmacokinetic profiles were concerns with the oprozomib formulation used in this study and need to be improved. Oprozomib-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (2/7 schedule) had encouraging efficacy, supporting an ongoing phase Ib study evaluating new oprozomib formulations for this combination in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Value of incorporating newly identified risk factors into risk prediction for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

Several comorbidities have recently been shown to affect risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN). Here, we evaluated the added predictive value of these comorbidities beyond established FN risk factors. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients diagnosed with cancer and treated with chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2000 and 2009. The study cohort was equally split into training and validation datasets to develop and evaluate the performance of FN risk prediction models in the first chemotherapy cycle. A reference model was developed based on the model proposed by Lyman et al (Cancer 2011;117:1917). A new model was developed by incorporating the newly identified comorbidities such as rheumatoid conditions and thyroid disorders into the reference model. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC), risk reclassification, and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used to evaluate the potential improvement of FN risk prediction by incorporating comorbidities. A total of 15 279 patients were included; 4.2% experienced FN in the first chemotherapy cycle. Including comorbidities in FN risk prediction did not improve AUROCC (reference model 0.71 vs new model 0.72). A significant improvement in individual-level FN risk prediction was indicated by IDI (P = .02). However, significant improvement in risk reclassification was not observed overall (although 6% of all patients were more accurately classified for their FN risk level, 5% were less accurately classified) or when examining predicted FN risk among patients who did and did not develop FN. Incorporating several new comorbidities into FN prediction led to improved FN risk prediction in the first chemotherapy cycle, although the observed improvements were small and might not be clinically relevant.

A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Pegfilgrastim in Patients Receiving First-Line FOLFOX/Bevacizumab or FOLFIRI/Bevacizumab for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Final Results of the Pegfilgrastim and Anti-VEGF Evaluation Study (PAVES).

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim's role in reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was not previously evaluated in a prospective study. The present phase III, double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy of pegfilgrastim versus placebo in reducing the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in patients with advanced CRC receiving bevacizumab combined with first-line chemotherapy (FOLFOX [leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with locally advanced or metastatic CRC were randomized 1:1 to placebo or 6 mg of pegfilgrastim ∼24 hours after receiving chemotherapy plus bevacizumab every 14 days. The study treatment period included 4 cycles, but patients could continue treatment for ≤ 60 months. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 3/4 FN in the first 4 cycles. The secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival, analyzed at the end of the long-term follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 845 patients were randomized from November 2009 to January 2012 (422, pegfilgrastim; 423, placebo). Pegfilgrastim significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in the first 4 treatment cycles (pegfilgrastim, 2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1%-4.3%; placebo, 5.7%; 95% CI, 3.7%-8.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.41; P = .014). No significant differences were observed between the 2 arms in ORR (OR, 1.15; P = .330), overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.94; P = .440), and progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .300). CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim reduced the FN incidence in patients with advanced CRC receiving chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Administration of pegfilgrastim was tolerable and did not negatively affect the tumor response or survival in this patient population.

Trajectory of absolute neutrophil counts in patients treated with pegfilgrastim on the day of chemotherapy versus the day after chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Risk of infection increases with severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). Pegfilgrastim is approved for use on the day after chemotherapy to reduce incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia (FN), in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this study, we compared severity and duration of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) suppression in patients who received pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy versus the next day. METHODS: We combined individual patient data from four Amgen-sponsored clinical trials in which patients with cancer were randomized to receive pegfilgrastim either the same day as chemotherapy or the next day. Severity and duration of ANC suppression were calculated using area over the curve (AOC, the area over the ANC-time response curve and below a given clinical threshold). AOC of ANC and incidences of CIN and FN were compared by day of pegfilgrastim use. RESULTS: The analysis included 95 same-day patients and 97 next-day patients. Despite similar ANC at baseline, ANC at nadir was higher among next-day patients than same-day patients. Mean AOC of ANC (cutoff 0.5 × 10(9)/L) among next-day patients was lower by 0.30 (95 % confidence interval: 0.16, 0.43) 10(9)/L × day than same-day patients in cycle 1. Next-day patients had lower incidences of CIN than same-day patients, but there were no significant differences in incidences of FN. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy had less severe and shorter suppression of ANC than patients who received pegfilgrastim the same day as chemotherapy.

Validation of Claims Algorithms for Progression to Metastatic Cancer in Patients with Breast, Non-small Cell Lung, and Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Validated algorithms for identifying progression to metastatic cancer could permit the use of administrative claims databases for research in this area. OBJECTIVE: To identify simple algorithms that could accurately detect cancer progression to metastatic breast, non-small cell lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) using medical and pharmacy claims data. METHODS: Adults with stage I-III breast, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or CRC in the Geisinger Health System from 2004 to 2011 were selected. Evidence of progression was extracted via manual chart review as the reference standard. In addition to secondary malignancy diagnosis (ICD-9 code for metastases), diagnoses, procedures, and treatments were selected with clinician input as indicators of cancer progression. Random forests models provided variable importance scores. In addition to codes for secondary malignancy, several more complex algorithms were constructed and performance measures calculated. RESULTS: Among those with breast cancer [17/502 (3.4%) progressed], the performance of a secondary malignancy code was suboptimal [sensitivity: 64.7%; specificity: 86.0%; positive predictive value (PPV): 13.9; negative predictive value (NPV): 98.6%]; requiring malignancy at another site or initiation of immunotherapy increased PPV and specificity but decreased sensitivity. For NSCLC [61/236 (25.8%) progressed], codes for secondary malignancy alone (PPV: 47.4%; NPV: 84.8%; sensitivity: 60.7%; specificity: 76.6%) performed similarly or better than more complex algorithms. For CRC [33/276 (12.0%) progressed], secondary malignancy codes had good specificity (92.7%) and NPV (92.3%) but low sensitivity (42.4%) and PPV (43.8%); an algorithm with change in chemotherapy increased sensitivity but decreased other metrics. CONCLUSION: Selected algorithms performed similarly to the presence of a secondary tumor diagnosis code, with low sensitivity/PPV and higher specificity/NPV. Accurate identification of cancer progression likely requires verification through chart review.

Pre-transplantation novel agent induction predicts progression-free survival for patients with immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis undergoing high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: High-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM/SCT) is an effective treatment modality for immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis; however, its application remains restricted to patients with good performance status and limited organ involvement. In recent years, the paradigm for AL amyloidosis has changed with the introduction of novel agents such as immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs). We hypothesized that use of novel agent induction regimens has improved outcomes for patients with AL amyloidosis undergoing HDM/SCT at our center. METHODS: All patients with AL amyloidosis, age ≥18 years who underwent HDM/SCT between 2001 and 2014 at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Medical Center were included in this study. Any regimen administered within 6 months prior to HDM/SCT including an IMiD or a PI was considered a novel induction regimen. Use of induction regimen was evaluated in a Cox proportional hazard model for association with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-five patients with AL amyloidosis underwent HDM/SCT. The median age was 57.2 years (range 39-74.4), 15 (33.3%) were women. The median number of organs involved was 2 (range 1-5), with 20 patients having only 1 (44.4%), 10 patients having 2 (22.2%), and 15 patients (33.3%) having ≥ 3 organs involved. Novel agent induction regimens were used prior to HDM/SCT in 21 patients (46.7%); these comprised PI in 13/21 (57.1%), IMiD alone in 6/21 (28.6%), PI and cyclophosphamide (CyBorD) in 3/21 (14.3%), and IMiD and PI in 3/21 (14.3%). Use of a novel agent induction regimen was associated with improved, but not OS. The 3-year PFS for patients who received a novel agent induction was 79%, while for those who did not was 53% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.317, p = 0.048). The 3-year OS for patients who received novel agent induction regimens was 95%, while for those who did not was 71% (HR = 0.454, p = 0.247). DISCUSSION: Our data suggest that use of a novel agent induction regimen including an IMiD or PI prior to HDM/SCT for patients with AL amyloidosis could improve outcomes, with improvement in PFS. Although these results are limited by sample size and lack of randomization, these results support possible further investigation of novel agent induction regimens in the context of a prospective clinical trial.