Anemia diagnosis and therapy in malignant diseases: implementation of guidelines-a representative study.

PURPOSE: Anemia in cancer should be diagnosed and treated according to guideline recommendations. The implementation of ESMO and German guidelines and their effect on anemia correction was analyzed. METHODS: This retrospective epidemiological study, representative for Germany, analyzed data on anemia management of cancer patients with anemia ≥ grade 2. The Guideline Adherence Score (GLAD) for diagnosis (GLAD-D) and therapy (GLAD-T) was defined as follows: 2 points for complete, 1 point for partial, 0 point for no adherence. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 1046 patients. Hb levels at diagnosis of anemia were 8-10 g/dL in 899 (85.9%) patients, 7-8 g/dL in 92 (8.7%), and < 7 g/dL (5.0%) in 52. Transferrin saturation was determined in 19% of patients. Four hundred fifty-six patients received RBC (43.6%), 198 (18.9%) iron replacement, 106 (10.1%) ESA, and 60 (5.7%) vitamin B12 replacement. 60.6% of patients receiving iron replacement were treated intravenously and 39.4% were treated orally. Two hundred eighty-eight (36.6%) of 785 patients receiving transfusions had no guideline-directed indication. GLAD-D was 2 in 310 patients (29.6%), 1 in 168 (16.1%), and 0 in 568 (54.3%). GLAD-T was 2 in 270 patients (25.8%), 1 in 320 patients (30.6%), and 0 in 456 patients (43.6%). Higher GLAD-D significantly correlated with higher GLAD-T (τB = 0.176, p < 0.001). GLAD-T 2 was significantly associated with greater Hb increase than GLAD-T 0/1 (p < 0.001) at 28 days (10.2 vs. 9.7 g/dL) and at 2 months (10.4 vs. 9.9 g/dL). CONCLUSIONS: Anemia assessment is inadequate, transfusion rates too high, and iron and ESA therapy too infrequent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05190263, date: 2022-01-13.

Standard diametric versus volumetric early tumor shrinkage as a predictor of survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: subgroup findings of the randomized, open-label phase III trial FIRE-3 / AIO KRK-0306.

OBJECTIVES: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) quantifies the objective response at the first assessment during systemic treatment. In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), ETS gains relevance as an early available surrogate for patient survival. The aim of this study was to increase the predictive accuracy of ETS by using semi-automated volumetry instead of standard diametric measurements. METHODS: Diametric and volumetric ETS were retrospectively calculated in 253 mCRC patients who received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. The association of diametric and volumetric ETS with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was compared. RESULTS: Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS predicted survival similarly regarding concordance indices (p > .05). In receiver operating characteristics, a volumetric threshold of 45% optimally identified short-term survivors. For patients with volumetric ETS ≥ 45% (vs < 45%), median OS was longer (32.5 vs 19.0 months, p < .001) and the risk of death reduced for the first and second year (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.25, p < .001, and HR = 0.39, p < .001). Patients with ETS ≥ 45% had a reduced risk of progressive disease only for the first 6 months (HR = 0.26, p < .001). These survival times and risks were comparable to those of diametric ETS ≥ 20% (vs < 20%). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of ETS in predicting survival was not increased by volumetric instead of diametric measurements. Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS similarly predicted survival, regardless of whether patients received cetuximab or bevacizumab. A volumetric ETS threshold of 45% and a diametric ETS threshold of 20% equally identified short-term survivors. KEY POINTS: • ETS based on volumetric measurements did not predict survival more accurately than ETS based on standard diametric measurements. • Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS predicted survival similarly in patients receiving FOLFIRI with cetuximab or bevacizumab. • A volumetric ETS threshold of 45% and a diametric ETS threshold of 20% equally identified short-term survivors.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

[Anemia: Diagnostics and Therapy]. / Ambulante Anämiediagnostik und -therapie.

The most common cause of anemia is iron deficiency, followed by anemia of chronic disease, which is due to an inflammatory reaction in chronic diseases such as heart failure, renal failure, rheumatoid diseases and cancer. Also from the therapeutic point of view, it is useful to divide iron deficiency anemia into two forms: absolute and functional iron deficiency. Absolute iron deficiency is characterized by low iron stores and low total iron. In functional iron deficiency, a sufficient amount of storage iron is present, but it cannot be mobilized. Therapy of iron deficient anemia should always eliminate the underlying cause. The goal of therapy is sustained normalization of hemoglobin concentration and total body iron. Therapy for absolute iron deficiency focuses on improving iron stores, eliminating chronic blood losses, and optimizing iron absorption via an iron-rich diet and iron supplementation. In the case of functional iron deficiency with inflammation present, IV iron supplementation is recommended in certain situations in addition to treatment of the underlying disease, especially in patients with cancer.

Early weight loss is an independent risk factor for shorter survival and increased side effects in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing first-line treatment within the randomized Phase III trial FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306).

Body weight loss is frequently regarded as negatively related to outcomes in patients with malignancies. This retrospective analysis of the FIRE-3 study evaluated the evolution of body weight in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumors (ie, wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). The prognostic and predictive relevance of early weight loss (EWL) regarding patient outcomes and treatment side effects were evaluated. Retrospective data on body weight during first 6 months of treatment were evaluated (N = 326). To correlate with efficacy endpoints and treatment side effects, patients were grouped according to clinically significant EWL ≥5% and <5% at Month 3. Age constituted the only significant predictor of EWL following a linear relationship with the corresponding log odds ratio (P = .016). EWL was significantly associated with the incident frequencies of diarrhea, edema, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. Further, a multivariate analysis revealed EWL to be an independent negative prognostic factor for overall survival (32.4 vs 21.1 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-2.38; P = .0098) and progression-free survival (11.8 vs 9.0 months; HR: 1.72; 95% CI = 1.18-2.5; P = .0048). In conclusion, EWL during systemic treatment against mCRC is significantly associated with patient age. Patients exhibiting EWL had worse survival and higher frequencies of adverse events. Early preventative measures targeted at weight maintenance should be evaluated, especially in elderly patients being at highest risk of EWL.

Immunoglobulin substitution in patients with secondary antibody deficiency in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma: a representative analysis of guideline adherence and infections.

INTRODUCTION: In secondary immunodeficiency, immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) is recommended by guidelines (GL) for patients with IgG level < 4 g/l and more than 3 infections or a severe infection. IgRT may be appropriate if IgG level < 4 g/l and/or 1-3 less severe infections (≤ grade 2). METHODS: This was a retrospective sample analysis representative for practices and hospitals in Germany. The treatments and infection data were collected from patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and multiple myeloma (MM). GL adherence (GLAD) was analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 1086 patients (CLL 490, MM 596) were collected from 86 centers. Of all patients, 34.8% developed IgG deficiency during therapy (CLL 35.5%; MM 34.2%). IgRT was given in 23.5% of CLL and 14.4% of MM patients. GLAD in hypogammaglobulinemia and indication to IgRT was 23.3% of 86 CLL and 22.1% of 77 MM patients. Without GLAD, the hazard ratio (HR) for any infection was 4.49 (95% CI 3.72-5.42; p < 0.001) and for severe infections (grade ≥ 3) 10.64 (95% CI 7.54-15.00; p < 0.001). Significant independent risk factors for infections were a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, IgG deficiency, and 3rd + line treatment, as well as therapy with BTK inhibitors or chemotherapy in CLL. Multivariable analysis showed a significantly lower risk of severe infections after start of IgRT with a HR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.28-0.77; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence correlated with fewer and less severe infections but was low in patients with indication to IgRT. Risk factors for infection can be identified. Risk of severe infections was significantly lower in patients with IgRT.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL): results of the randomized, open-label, non-inferiority AVOID neutropenia study.

BACKGROUND: Lipegfilgrastim has been shown to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for reduction of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancer patients. This open-label, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) at high risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. PATIENT AND METHODS: One hundred and one patients (median age, 75 years) were randomized to lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim (6 mg/cycle) during six cycles of R-CHOP21. RESULTS: Lipegfilgrastim was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the primary efficacy endpoint, reduction of DSN in cycle 1. In the per-protocol population, mean (standard deviation) DSN was 0.8 (0.92) and 0.9 (1.11) days in the two groups, respectively; the adjusted mean difference between groups was - 0.3 days (95% confidence interval, - 0.70 to 0.19). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated in the intent-to-treat population. The incidence of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 51% (21/41) in the lipegfilgrastim group and 52% (23/44) in the pegfilgrastim group. Very severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 109/L) in cycle 1 was reported by 5 (12%) patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 8 (18%) patients in the pegfilgrastim group. However, over all cycles, febrile neutropenia (strict definition) was reported by only 1 (2%) patient in each treatment group (during cycle 1 in the lipegfilgrastim group and cycle 6 in the pegfilgrastim group). The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery (defined as ≥ 2.0 × 109/L) was 8.3 and 9.4 days in the two groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 46% of patients in each group; none were considered treatment-related. Eight patients died during the study (2 in the lipegfilgrastim group, 5 in the pegfilgrastim group, and 1 who died before starting study treatment). No deaths occurred during the treatment period, and all were considered to be related to the underlying disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows lipegfilgrastim to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the reduction of DSN in elderly patients with aggressive B cell NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02044276; EudraCT number 2013-001284-23.

Guideline adherence in bone-targeted treatment of cancer patients with bone metastases in Germany.

PURPOSE: To assess adherence to the current European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) clinical practice guideline on bone health in cancer patients and the German guidelines for lung, breast, and prostate cancer among German oncologists in hospitals and office-based physicians and to identify predictors of guideline compliance to assess the needs for dedicated training. METHODS: This was a retrospective sample analysis representing hospitals and office-based physicians in Germany in 2016. Records from lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients who had received a diagnosis of bone metastasis between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, were included. Oncologists at participating centers answered a self-assessment survey on aspects related to their professional life, including guideline adherence and years of clinical experience in medical oncology. Guideline adherence rates were assessed from patient records. Treatment variables and survey data were used to identify predictors of guideline compliance in a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. RESULTS: Disregarding recommendations for supplementation of calcium and vitamin D, guideline adherence among physicians treating lung, breast, or prostate cancer patients was 62%, 92%, and 83%, respectively. Compliance was 15%, 42%, and 40% if recommendations for dietary supplements were taken into account. Identified predictors of guideline compliance included treatment setting, medical specialty, years of professional experience, and frequency of quality circle attendance. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with the ESMO and the German guidelines in cancer patients varies between medical specialties. In particular, patients with lung cancer and bone metastases often do not receive the recommended osteoprotective treatment and required supplementation. Discrepancies between guideline recommendations and common practice should be addressed with dedicated training.

Imatinib dose reduction in major molecular response of chronic myeloid leukemia: results from the German Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV.

Standard first-line therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia is treatment with imatinib. In the randomized German Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV, more potent BCR-ABL inhibition with 800 mg ('high-dose') imatinib accelerated achievement of a deep molecular remission. However, whether and when a de-escalation of the dose intensity under high-dose imatinib can be safely performed without increasing the risk of losing deep molecular response is unknown. To gain insights into this clinically relevant question, we analyzed the outcome of imatinib dose reductions from 800 mg to 400 mg daily in the Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV. Of the 422 patients that were randomized to the 800 mg arm, 68 reduced imatinib to 400 mg after they had achieved at least a stable major molecular response. Of these 68 patients, 61 (90%) maintained major molecular remission on imatinib at 400 mg. Five of the seven patients who lost major molecular remission on the imatinib standard dose regained major molecular remission while still on 400 mg imatinib. Only two of 68 patients had to switch to more potent kinase inhibition to regain major molecular remission. Importantly, the lengths of the intervals between imatinib high-dose treatment before and after achieving major molecular remission were associated with the probabilities of maintaining major molecular remission with the standard dose of imatinib. Taken together, the data support the view that a deep molecular remission achieved with high-dose imatinib can be safely maintained with standard dose in most patients. Study protocol registered at clinicaltrials.gov 00055874.

G-CSF guideline adherence in Germany, an update with a retrospective and representative sample survey.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines (GL) recommend neutropenia prophylaxis with G-CSF after chemotherapy (CTX) for patients with high (≥ 20%), or, if additional risk factors are present, intermediate (≥ 10-20%) risk of febrile neutropenia. The first sample survey in 2012 (NP1) showed lack of GL adherence. The aim of this second sample survey was to evaluate if GL adherence and implementation have improved. METHODS: The sample size represented 1.0% of the incidences of lung and 1.1% of breast cancer in Germany in 2010. Data of patients with a febrile neutropenia (FN) risk ≥ 10% who had received at least 2 cycles of chemotherapy between October 2014 and September 2015 was surveyed retrospectively. RESULTS: Data from 573 lung cancer (LC) and 801 breast cancer (BC) patients was collected from 109 hospitals and 83 oncology practices with 222 physicians participating. Compared with the NP1 survey, GL adherence increased in LC and FN high-risk (HR) chemotherapy from 15.4 to 47.8% (p < 0.001), and in FN intermediate-risk (IR) chemotherapy from 38.8 to 44.3% (p = 0.003). In BC and FN-HR chemotherapy, GL adherence was unchanged: 85.6% vs. 85.1% (p = 0.73) but increased in FN-IR from 49.3 to 57.8% (p < 0.001). In all IR CTX cycles, there are also no significant differences in GL adherence between the first (51.3%) and subsequent cycles (51.1%; p = 0.948). In LC patients treated in certified or comprehensive cancer centers, the GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy was 53.0% vs. 44.9% in other centers (p = 0.295); in FN-IR chemotherapy, it was 45.1% vs. 43.8% (p = 0.750). In BC with FN-HR chemotherapy, GL adherence in certified or comprehensive centers was 85.4% vs. 84.7% in other institutions (p = 0.869); in FN-IR chemotherapy, it was 60.2% vs. 55.0% (p = 0.139). GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy and in FN-IR chemotherapy differed between pulmonologists and hematologist-oncologists (FN-HR: 25.0% vs. 43.6%, p < 0.001; 38.1% vs. 48.6%, p < 0.001). Comparing gynecologists with hematologist-oncologists, GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy was 86.2% vs. 82.5%. In FN-IR chemotherapy, GL adherence by gynecologists and hematologist-oncologists was 58.6% and 55.6%, respectively (p = 0.288; p = 0.424). Classification and regression tree analysis split pulmonologists and other specialists, with the latter adhering more to GL (p < 0.001). Hematologist-oncologists and gynecologists with more than 2 years of professional training in medical cancer therapy adhered more closely to GL than others (68.7% vs. 46.2%, p < 0.001). Pulmonologists attending ≥ 2 national congresses annually adhered more to guidelines than other pulmonologists (44.8% vs. 24.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to G-CSF GL in Germany has increased but is still insufficient. Certified and comprehensive cancer centers show a higher rate of GL implementation. In GL adherence, there is still a disparity between cancer types and between oncology treatment specialists.

Real-world safety experience of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim, short-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

PURPOSE: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (rG-CSFs), such as filgrastim, are administered to prevent complications in patients receiving chemotherapy. In Europe, a biosimilar to filgrastim, tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim, was approved in 2008. In the USA, the same product was approved as tbo-filgrastim under a 351(a) biologic license application in 2012 with the brand name Granix®. Postmarket surveillance remains a priority for monitoring the safety of biologics and biosimilars to identify rare and immunogenicity-related events. We report the global and US pharmacovigilance data for tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim, respectively. METHODS: Cumulative exposure and adverse event data from initial approval in Europe to December 31, 2016, were collected globally from spontaneous reports submitted by healthcare professionals and consumers, scientific literature, competent authorities, and solicited case reports from non-interventional studies. A separate search was conducted on the global data set to identify reports originating from the USA and Puerto Rico to describe the US experience. RESULTS: Overall, the global safety profile of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim in the postmarket, real-world setting was comparable to clinical trial experience. Postmarket safety experience of tbo-filgrastim in the USA was consistent with global data. The most common SAEs were febrile neutropenia and decreased white blood cell count. The most common non-serious event was bone pain. There was no evidence of immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance analysis indicates that postmarket experience of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim is consistent with clinical trials. Adverse reactions associated with the originator rG-CSF (capillary leak syndrome and glomerulonephritis) have not been observed with tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim or tbo-filgrastim during the postmarket period.

Relevance of liver-limited disease in metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup findings of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 trial.

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), liver-limited disease (LLD) is associated with a higher chance of metastectomy leading to long-term survival. However, limited data describes the prognostic and predictive relevance of initially unresectable LLD with regard to targeted first-line therapy. The present analysis investigated the relevance of initially unresectable LLD in mCRC patients treated with targeted therapy against either the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF). The analysis was performed based on FIRE-3, a randomized phase III trial comparing first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab (anti-EGFR) or bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC. Of 400 patients, 133 (33.3%) had LLD and 267 (66.8%) had non-LLD. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in LLD compared to non-LLD patients (36.0 vs. 25.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.87; p = 0.002). In a multivariate analysis also including secondary hepatic resection as time-dependent variable, LLD status was independently prognostic for OS (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91; p = 0.01). As assessed by interaction tests, treatment benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was independent of LLD status with regard to objective response rate (ORR), early tumour shrinkage ≥20% (ETS), depth of response (DpR) and OS (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, LLD could be identified as a prognostic factor in RAS-WT mCRC, which was independent of hepatic resection in patients treated with targeted therapy. LLD had no predictive relevance since benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab over bevacizumab was independent of LLD status.

Imatinib in myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRB in chronic or blast phase.

We evaluated clinical characteristics and outcome on imatinib of 22 patients with myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRB. Median age was 49 years (range 20-80), 91% were male. Fifteen different PDGFRB fusion genes were identified. Eosinophilia was absent in 4/19 (21%) cases and only 11/19 (58%) cases had eosinophils ≥1.5×109/L. On imatinib, 17/17 (100%) patients in chronic phase achieved complete hematologic remission after median 2 months (range 0-13)​. Complete cytogenetic remission and/or complete molecular remission by RT-PCR were achieved in 12/13 (92%) and 12/14 patients (86%) after median 10 (range 3-34) and 19 months (range 7-110), respectively. In patients with blast phase (myeloid, n = 2; lymphoid, n = 3), treatment included combinations of imatinib (n = 5), intensive chemotherapy (n = 3), and/or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (n = 3). All 3 transplanted patients (complex karyotype, n = 2) experienced early relapse. Initially, patients were treated with imatinib 400 mg/day (n = 15) or 100 mg/day (n = 7), the dose was reduced from 400 mg/day to 100 mg/day during follow-up in 9 patients. After a median treatment of 71 months (range 1-135), the 5-year survival rate was 83%; 4/22 (18%) patients died (chronic phase; n = 2; blast phase, n = 2) due to progression (n = 3) or comorbidity while in remission (n = 1). Of note, 3/4 patients had a complex karyotype. In summary, the most important characteristics of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with rearrangement of PDGFRB include (a) male predominance, (b) frequent lack of hypereosinophilia,

Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN. METHODS: Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach. RESULTS: Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days' filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days' filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days' filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSION: In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

Retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide for acute promyelocytic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) with chemotherapy is the standard of care for acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), resulting in cure rates exceeding 80%. Pilot studies of treatment with arsenic trioxide with or without ATRA have shown high efficacy and reduced hematologic toxicity. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter trial comparing ATRA plus chemotherapy with ATRA plus arsenic trioxide in patients with APL classified as low-to-intermediate risk (white-cell count, ≤10×10(9) per liter). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ATRA plus arsenic trioxide for induction and consolidation therapy or standard ATRA-idarubicin induction therapy followed by three cycles of consolidation therapy with ATRA plus chemotherapy and maintenance therapy with low-dose chemotherapy and ATRA. The study was designed as a noninferiority trial to show that the difference between the rates of event-free survival at 2 years in the two groups was not greater than 5%. RESULTS: Complete remission was achieved in all 77 patients in the ATRA-arsenic trioxide group who could be evaluated (100%) and in 75 of 79 patients in the ATRA-chemotherapy group (95%) (P=0.12). The median follow-up was 34.4 months. Two-year event-free survival rates were 97% in the ATRA-arsenic trioxide group and 86% in the ATRA-chemotherapy group (95% confidence interval for the difference, 2 to 22 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.02 for superiority of ATRA-arsenic trioxide). Overall survival was also better with ATRA-arsenic trioxide (P=0.02). As compared with ATRA-chemotherapy, ATRA-arsenic trioxide was associated with less hematologic toxicity and fewer infections but with more hepatic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: ATRA plus arsenic trioxide is at least not inferior and may be superior to ATRA plus chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with low-to-intermediate-risk APL. (Funded by Associazione Italiana contro le Leucemie and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00482833.).

Splenic irradiation before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized study.

In the context of discussions on the reproducibility of clinical studies, we reanalyzed a prospective randomized study on the role of splenic irradiation as adjunct to the conditioning for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Between 1986 and 1989, a total of 229 patients with CML were randomized; of these, 225 (98 %; 112 with, 113 without splenic irradiation) could be identified in the database and their survival updated. Results confirmed the early findings with no significant differences in all measured endpoints (overall survival at 25 years: 42.7 %, 32.0-52.4 % vs 52.9 %, 43.2-62.6 %; p = 0.355, log rank test). Additional splenic irradiation failed to reduce relapse incidence. It did not increase non-relapse mortality nor the risk of late secondary malignancies. Comforting are the long-term results from this predefined consecutive cohort of patients: more than 60 % were alive at plus 25 years when they were transplanted with a low European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) risk sore. This needs to be considered today when treatment options are discussed for patients who failed initial tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and have an available low risk HLA-identical donor.

Adherence to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) guidelines to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy--a representative sample survey in Germany.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy increases complications, morbidity, risk of death, reduction of dose delivery and impairs quality of life. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis after chemotherapy is recommended in the guideline (GL) if the risk of FN is high (≥20%) or intermediate (≥10-20%) with additional risk factors. This study evaluated the implementation of G-CSF GL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sample size of the survey was calculated at 2% of the incidences of malignant lymphoma, breast cancer, and lung cancer in Germany in 2006. Patients were documented retrospectively over three to nine cycles of chemotherapy and FN risk ≥10%. Professional physician profiles were analyzed by classification and regression tree analysis (CART). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five hematologists-oncologists and pulmonologists and gynecologists specialized in oncology documented data of 666 lung cancer patients, 286 malignant lymphoma patients, and 976 breast cancer patients, with 7805 chemotherapy cycles; 85.1% of physicians claimed adhering to G-CSF GL. Adherence to GL in all high-FN-risk chemotherapy cycles was 15.4% in lung cancer, 84.5% in malignant lymphoma, and 85.6% in breast cancer, and in all intermediate-FN-risk chemotherapy cycles, lung cancer it was 38.8%, malignant lymphoma it was 59.4%, and breast cancer it was 49.3%. G-CSF was overused without additional patient risk factors in 7.2% lung cancer cycles, 16.8% malignant lymphoma cycles, and 17.6% breast cancer cycles. The CART analysis split pulmonologists and other specialists, with the latter adhering more to GL. Pulmonologists, trained less than 22.5 years, adhered better to GL, as did also gynecologists or hematologists-oncologists with professional experience less than 8.1 years. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of and adherence to G-CSF GL differed between lung cancer, lymphoma, and breast cancer. Physicians overestimate their adherence to the GL. Physicians adhering to the GL can be characterized.

Addition of sorafenib versus placebo to standard therapy in patients aged 60 years or younger with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (SORAML): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data and results from non-randomised trials suggest that the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib might be an effective drug for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib versus placebo in addition to standard chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia aged 60 years or younger. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was done at 25 sites in Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, previously untreated acute myeloid leukaemia who had a WHO clinical performance score 0-2, adequate renal and liver function, no cardiac comorbidities, and no recent trauma or operation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two cycles of induction therapy with daunorubicin (60 mg/m(2) on days 3-5) plus cytarabine (100 mg/m(2) on days 1-7), followed by three cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation therapy (3 g/m(2) twice daily on days 1, 3, and 5) plus either sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo on days 10-19 of induction cycles 1 and 2, from day 8 of each consolidation, and as maintenance for 12 months. Allogeneic stem-cell transplantation was scheduled for all intermediate-risk patients with a sibling donor and for all high-risk patients with a matched donor in first remission. Computer-generated randomisation was done in blocks. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, with an event defined as either primary treatment failure or relapse or death, assessed in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. We report the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00893373, and the EU Clinical Trials Register (2008-004968-40). FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2009, and Nov 28, 2011, 276 patients were enrolled and randomised, of whom nine did not receive study medication. 267 patients were included in the primary analysis (placebo, n=133; sorafenib, n=134). With a median follow-up of 36 months (IQR 35·5-38·1), median event-free survival was 9 months (95% CI 4-15) in the placebo group versus 21 months (9-32) in the sorafenib group, corresponding to a 3-year event-free survival of 22% (95% CI 13-32) in the placebo group versus 40% (29-51) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 95% CI; 0·45-0·91; p=0·013). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in both groups were fever (71 [53%] in the placebo group vs 73 [54%] in the sorafenib group), infections (55 [41%] vs 46 [34%]), pneumonia (21 [16%] vs 20 [14%]), and pain (13 [10%] vs 15 [11%]). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were significantly more common in the sorafenib group than the placebo group were fever (relative risk [RR] 1·54, 95% CI 1·04-2·28), diarrhoea (RR 7·89, 2·94-25·2), bleeding (RR 3·75, 1·5-10·0), cardiac events (RR 3·46, 1·15-11·8), hand-foot-skin reaction (only in sorafenib group), and rash (RR 4·06, 1·25-15·7). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute myeloid leukaemia aged 60 years or younger, the addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy has antileukaemic efficacy but also increased toxicity. Our findings suggest that kinase inhibitors could be a useful addition to curative treatment for acute myeloid leukaemia. Overall survival after long-term follow-up and strategies to reduce toxicity are needed to determine the future role of sorafenib in treatment of this disease. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare.