The SEMA3F-NRP1/NRP2 axis is a key factor in the acquisition of invasive traits in in situ breast ductal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is urgently needed to identify these preinvasive lesions as distinct clinical entities. Semaphorin 3F (SEMA3F) is a soluble axonal guidance molecule, and its coreceptors Neuropilin 1 (NRP1) and NRP2 are strongly expressed in invasive epithelial BC cells. METHODS: We utilized two cell line models to represent the progression from a healthy state to the mild-aggressive or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) stage and, ultimately, to invasive cell lines. Additionally, we employed in vivo models and conducted analyses on patient databases to ensure the translational relevance of our results. RESULTS: We revealed SEMA3F as a promoter of invasion during the DCIS-to-invasive ductal carcinoma transition in breast cancer (BC) through the action of NRP1 and NRP2. In epithelial cells, SEMA3F activates epithelialmesenchymal transition, whereas it promotes extracellular matrix degradation and basal membrane and myoepithelial cell layer breakdown. CONCLUSIONS: Together with our patient database data, these proof-of-concept results reveal new SEMA3F-mediated mechanisms occurring in the most common preinvasive BC lesion, DCIS, and represent potent and direct activation of its transition to invasion. Moreover, and of clinical and therapeutic relevance, the effects of SEMA3F can be blocked directly through its coreceptors, thus preventing invasion and keeping DCIS lesions in the preinvasive state.

ENDOLUNG trial. A phase 1/2 study of the Akt/mTOR inhibitor and autophagy inducer Ibrilatazar (ABTL0812) in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) have been the standard of care for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) for many years. However, this chemotherapy combination shows limited efficacy and recurrences often occur in less than 12 months. ABTL0812 is a novel drug that selectively kill cancer cells by cytotoxic autophagy and has shown anticancer efficacy in preclinical models of EC in combination with CP. METHODS: ENDOLUNG was an open-label, phase 1/2 clinical trial designed to determine the safety and efficacy of Ibrilatazar (ABTL0812) with CP in patients with advanced/recurrent EC and non-irradiable stage III and IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC). The phase 1 part consisted of a 3 + 3 de-escalation design followed by an expansion cohort with 12 patients. The primary endpoint was safety. ABTL0812 starting dose was 1300 mg tid combined with carboplatin at area under the curve (AUC) 5 and paclitaxel at 175 mg/m2 both administered every 21 days for up to 8 cycles. The phase 2 part included a total of 51 patients. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) and the secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: During the phase 1 only one dose limiting toxicity (DLT), a grade 4 neutropenia, was observed in 1 out of 6 patients, thus no de-escalation was applied. One additional DLT, a grade 3 febrile neutropenia, was observed in the expansion cohort, thus the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for ABTL0812 was established at 1300 mg tid. Most frequent hematological adverse events (AE) of the combination were neutropenia (52.9%), anemia (37.3%) and thrombocytopenia (19.6%). Nausea (66.7%), asthenia (66.7%), diarrhea (54.9%) and vomiting (54.9%) were the most frequent non-hematological adverse events (AEs). The combination of ABTL0812 plus CP showed an ORR of 65.8% (13.2% complete response and 52.6% partial response) with a median DOR of 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.3-10.8 months). Median PFS was 9.8 months (95% CI: 6.6-10.6) and median OS 23.6 months (95% CI 6.4-ND). Pharmacokinetic parameters were compatible with target engagement observed in preclinical studies, and blood pharmacodynamic biomarkers indicated sustained target regulation during, at least, 28 days after starting the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the combination of ABTL0812 with CP is safe and feasible with an encouraging activity in patients with advanced/recurrent EC. Our data warrant further confirmation in prospective randomized trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trial Register, EudraCT number 2016-001352-21 and National Clinical Trials Number, NCT03366480. Registration on 19 September 2016.

The novel proautophagy anticancer drug ABTL0812 potentiates chemotherapy in adenocarcinoma and squamous nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Around 40% of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients are Stage IV, where the improvement of survival and reduction of disease-related adverse events is the main goal for oncologists. In this scenario, we present preclinical evidence supporting the use of ABTL0812 in combination with chemotherapy for treating advanced and metastatic Nonsmall cell lung adenocarcinomas (NSCLC) and squamous carcinomas. ABTL0812 is a new chemical entity, currently in Phase 1b/2a clinical trial for advanced squamous NSCLC in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin (P/C), after successfully completing the first-in-human trial where it showed an excellent safety profile and signs of efficacy. We show here that ABTL0812 inhibits Akt/mTOR axis by inducing the overexpression of TRIB3 and activating autophagy in lung squamous carcinoma cell lines. Furthermore, treatment with ABTL0812 also induces AMPK activation and ROS accumulation. Moreover, combination of ABTL0812 with chemotherapy markedly increases the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy without increasing toxicity. We further show that combination of ABTL0812 and chemotherapy induces nonapoptotic cell death mediated by TRIB3 activation and autophagy induction. We also present preliminary clinical data indicating that TRIB3 could serve as a potential novel pharmacodynamic biomarker to monitor ABTL0812 activity administered alone or in combination with chemotherapy in squamous NSCLC patients. The safety profile of ABTL0812 and its good synergy with chemotherapy potentiate the therapeutic potential of current lines of treatment based on chemotherapy regimens, arising as a promising option for improving these patients therapeutic expectancy.

Knowledge and awareness of biosimilars among oncology patients in Colorado, USA.

Aim: We aimed to improve oncology patients' knowledge and awareness of biosimilars. Subsequently, we conducted an assessment of this knowledge by use of an anonymous online survey. Patients & methods: Printed materials discussing major topics related to biosimilars were developed during Phase I of our educational initiative. The brochures contained a link to the online survey. Results: A total of 79 patients responded to our survey. More than 70% of survey participants selected the correct definition of biosimilars and nearly 80% did so on questions focused on regulation, adverse reactions reporting and cost issues related to biosimilars. Conclusion: Our results indicate a good level of both knowledge and awareness of major topics concerning biosimilars among our survey participants.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia/febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim in solid tumors versus hematological malignancies: MONITOR-GCSF study.

AIM: This study aimed to report patterns of biosimilar filgrastim prophylaxis and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with hematological malignancies or solid tumors. PATIENTS & METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF is a real-world study of 1447 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (solid tumors: 77.2%; hematological malignancies: 22.8%). RESULTS: Differences in prophylaxis intensity and day of initiation relative to guideline recommendations were observed. In hematology patients, higher rates of CIN and FN occurred at cycle level, and rate of FN was higher at patient level (9.1 vs 5.0% in solid tumor patients). CONCLUSION: Adequate GCSF support in hematology and solid tumor patients is important to prevent CIN/FN and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances.

Outcomes of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®) initiated "same-day" (< 24 h), "per-guidelines" (24-72 h), and "late" (> 72 h): findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study.

PURPOSE: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are indicated for prophylaxis or management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN). Guidelines recommend G-CSF 24-72 h following chemotherapy; however, some evidence suggests that G-CSF initiated < 24 h may benefit some patients. METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF was a prospective, observational, multicenter, pan-European study of 1447 chemotherapy-treated patients receiving daily biosimilar (standard) filgrastim (Zarzio®/Zarxio®, filgrastim-sndz, Hexal AG, Sandoz Inc.). In this analysis, cycles were classified as same-day, per-guidelines, or late if G-CSF support was initiated < 24 h, 24-72 h, and > 72 h after chemotherapy. Outcomes included occurrence of CIN of any grade (CIN1/4), grade 3 or 4 (CIN3/4), grade 4 (CIN4), or FN: CIN/FN-related hospitalization or CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance. RESULTS: A total of 5930 chemotherapy cycles from 1423 evaluable patients from MONITOR-GCSF had data for day of G-CSF initiation: 795 cycles (13.4%) classified as same-day, 3320 (56.0%) as per-guidelines, and 1815 (30.6%) as late. Groups did not differ as to CIN1/4 and FN episodes, or CIN/FN-related hospitalizations or chemotherapy disturbances. Patients in the same-day and per-guidelines groups had statistically similar odds of not experiencing any outcomes of interest in any given cycle. Patients in the late group had worse odds of experiencing CIN1/4, CIN3/4, and CIN4 episodes in any given cycle. Proportions of patients reporting clinical events of interest were generally similar. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world evidence indicates that CIN/FN prophylaxis initiated with biosimilar filgrastim within 24-72 h post-chemotherapy is effective and safe. Filgrastim administration on the day of chemotherapy may be appropriate in some patients.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving biosimilar filgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced/febrile neutropaenia: Results from the MONITOR-GCSF study.

OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence data on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. MONITOR-GCSF is a pan-European, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study designed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropaenia (CIN) and febrile neutropaenia (FN). METHODS: In this subanalysis, patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes are described for 345 patients with stage 3 or 4 NSCLC, receiving up to six chemotherapy cycles. Patients were treated with biosimilar filgrastim as per their treating physician's best judgement. RESULTS: CIN (any grade) occurred in 13.6% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 36.5% of patients in all cycles. FN occurred in 1.4% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 5.2% of patients in all cycles. Grade 3-4 FN occurred in 1.2% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 3.8% of patients in all cycles. CONCLUSION: Results show that in real-life practice in patients with NSCLC, biosimilar filgrastim has similar effectiveness and safety to the known effectiveness and safety profile of reference filgrastim, supporting the use of biosimilar filgrastim for the real-world treatment of neutropaenia in patients with NSCLC.

Safety Profile of Biosimilar Filgrastim (Zarzio/Zarxio): A Combined Analysis of Phase III Studies.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of adverse events (AEs) in pivotal registration trials and ongoing postmarketing surveillance is important for all biologics, including biosimilars. A combined analysis of two pivotal registration studies was performed to strengthen evidence on safety for biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, a sensitive clinical setting to confirm biosimilarity of filgrastim. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were combined from two phase III studies of biosimilar filgrastim EP2006. The U.S. registration study was a randomized, double-blind comparison of biosimilar and reference filgrastim in women aged ≥18 years with breast cancer, receiving (neo)adjuvant treatment with TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide). The European Union registration study was a single-arm, open-label study of biosimilar filgrastim in women aged ≥18 years with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin + docetaxel. Patients received filgrastim as a subcutaneous injection on day 2 of each cycle for <14 days or until the absolute neutrophil count reached 10 × 109/L after the expected nadir. Results were combined for cycles 1-4. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients received biosimilar filgrastim EP2006. Patients had a mean (± standard deviation) age of 51.1 (± 10.8) years, and 78.7% of patients had stage II or III breast cancer. A total of 46 (20.6%) patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim had AEs considered filgrastim-related. The most frequently reported filgrastim-related AEs were musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorders (15.2%), including bone pain (7.2%). One death (due to pulmonary embolism) occurred of a patient receiving biosimilar filgrastim (not considered filgrastim-related). No patient developed antidrug antibodies during the study. CONCLUSION: Biosimilar filgrastim has a safety profile consistent with previous filgrastim studies and is effective in preventing febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 (Zarzio, Zarxio, biosimilar filgrastim-sndz) has been approved in Europe since 2009 and in the U.S. since 2015. This combined analysis of two phase III studies provides additional clinical evidence that the biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 has a safety profile consistent with previous studies of reference filgrastim and supports large postmarketing studies of EP2006 in Europe. Strengthening the evidence for biosimilar filgrastim can help improve acceptance of biosimilars and increase patient access to biologics.

MONITOR-GCSF DLBCL subanalysis: Treatment patterns/outcomes with biosimilar filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced/febrile neutropenia prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: Prospective data on the use of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and its aggressive subtypes, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), are limited. MONITOR-GCSF is a pan-European, multicenter, prospective, observational study aiming to describe treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN). METHODS: This analysis describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes for 245 patients with stage 3 or 4 DLBCL receiving ≤6 chemotherapy cycles as part of MONITOR-GCSF study, including patients aged ≥65 years and ≥70 years. Outcomes of interest included the incidence of CIN and FN, antibiotic prophylaxis, biosimilar filgrastim prophylaxis, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: MONITOR-GCSF included 245 patients with DLBCL. Of these patients, 87 (35.5%) experienced one or more CIN (any grade) episode and 24 (9.8%) experienced FN (any grade). The most frequent AE reported was bone pain (n = 7, 2.9%), followed by arthralgia (n = 2, 0.8%) and back pain (n = 2, 0.8%). CONCLUSION: In real-life practice, biosimilar filgrastim demonstrated clinical effectiveness and safety in patients with DLBCL. The large percentage of patients aged ≥65 years adds to the evidence on how to best treat older patients with DLBCL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Fatigue- and health-related quality-of-life in anemic patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe perceptions of fatigue in anemic patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: This is an observational multicenter study in a prospective cohort of lymphoma and MM patients with hemoglobin ≤ 11 g/dl managed under clinical practice. Fatigue was assessed at baseline and after 3 months using the PERFORM questionnaire, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue, the linear analogue self-assessment, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scales. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty patients (125 with lymphoma, 125 with MM) were included. Only 59.2 and 56.0% of patients received treatment for anemia, respectively. After 3 months, the hemoglobin levels increased significantly compared to baseline from 10.0 ± 1.2 to 11.5 ± 1.8 in the lymphoma group and from 9.9 ± 0.9 to 10.9 ± 1.5 g/dl, in the MM group (P < 0.001, both comparisons). At baseline, 87.2 and 84.8% of patients had fatigue (median intensity (VAS) 60 and 50). The overall PERFORM score decreased from 35.2 ± 15.2 to 32.0 ± 14.6 (P = 0.048), without differences between groups. No statistically significant changes were observed in the other scales. After multivariable adjustment, the only common independent factor associated to improvements in fatigue and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was an increase in hemoglobin levels. The administration of curative intention treatment was also associated with HRQoL improvements. The psychometric properties of the PERFORM questionnaire in MM patients were good (Cronbach's alpha 0.87-0.98; intraclass correlation coefficients 0.84-0.89; effect sizes 0.59-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all patients with lymphoma or MM diagnosed with anemia suffered from fatigue of moderate to severe intensity. Despite similar anemia supportive treatment, better correction of fatigue scores was observed in lymphoma patients after 3 months. Increases in hemoglobin were significantly associated to improvements in fatigue and HRQoL.

Proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) compared with reference pegfilgrastim in Asian patients with breast cancer: an exploratory comparison from two Phase III trials.

AIM: This is a pooled subgroup analysis of Asian patients enrolled in two Phase III confirmatory studies comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. PATIENTS & METHODS: Women were randomized to LA-EP2006 (n = 90) or reference (n = 84) pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®, Amgen, Inc., CA, USA) for ≤6 cycles of TAC chemotherapy. Primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia during Cycle 1 (number of consecutive days with absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 109/l) with equivalence confirmed if 95% CIs were within a ±1-day margin. RESULTS: Mean duration of severe neutropenia (days) in Cycle 1 was 1.36 ± 0.98 (LA-EP2006) versus 1.35 ± 1.06 (reference) (difference 0.01 days; 95% CI: -0.30-0.32, indicating equivalence). CONCLUSION: LA-EP2006 showed similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with reference pegfilgrastim.

Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study.

PURPOSE: In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations. METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary). RESULTS: Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches). CONCLUSIONS: The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle.

A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar LA-EP2006 and Reference Pegfilgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In highly regulated markets, there are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2) was a confirmatory efficacy and safety study designed to compare proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen) in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 308 patients were randomized to LA-EP2006 or reference pegfilgrastim. Each patient received TAC (intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of each cycle, for six or more cycles. Pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 or reference) was given subcutaneously (6 mg in 0.6 mL) on day 2 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1 (number of consecutive days with an absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 10(9)/L), with equivalence confirmed if 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were within a 1-day margin. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced. DSN was equivalent between groups at mean ± SD 1.36 ± 1.13 (LA-EP2006, n = 155) and 1.19 ± 0.98 (reference, n = 153) in cycle 1. With a treatment difference (reference minus LA-EP2006) of -0.16 days (90% CI -0.36 to 0.04; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.08), LA-EP2006 was equivalent to reference pegfilgrastim. Secondary efficacy parameters were similar between groups during cycle 1 and across cycles. Safety profiles were also similar between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, or polyethylene glycol were detected. CONCLUSION: LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim were therapeutically equivalent and comparable regarding efficacy and safety in the prevention of neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving TAC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Biosimilars are biologics with similar quality, safety, and efficacy to a reference product that may increase the affordability of treatment compared with their reference compounds. There are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim in highly regulated markets. No previous phase III studies have been performed with LA-EP2006. PROTECT-2 was conducted to confirm the similarity of the proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 to pegfilgrastim. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) may benefit oncology patients by offering increased access to biological treatments that may improve clinical outcomes. This means that patients could potentially be treated prophylactically with biologics rather than only after complications have occurred.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim (the MONITOR-GCSF study).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (chemotherapy-induced (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN)) prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®). METHODS: MONITOR-GCSF is an international (12 countries), multi-center (140), prospective (max. six cycles), observational, open-label, pharmaco-epidemiologic study of cancer patients (n = 1447) treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy across a total of 6,213 cycles and receiving prophylaxis with Zarzio®. Data were analyzed using both the patient and cycle as unit of analysis. RESULTS: Most (72.3 %) received primary prophylaxis; dosed mainly (53.2 %) at 30 MIU but differentiated by weight, chemotoxicity, and tumor type; and mainly (53.2 %) initiated in the 24-72h post-chemotherapy window but differentiated by prophylaxis type, tumor type, and chemotoxicity and for modal/median duration of 5 days. Relative to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines, 56.6 % were correctly prophylacted, 17.4 % under-prophylacted, and 26.0 % over-prophylacted. The following incidence rates were recorded: CIN grade 4 13.2 % of patients and 3.9 % of cycles, FN 5.9 % of patients and 1.4 % of cycles, CIN/FN-related hospitalizations 6.1 % of patients and 1.5 % of cycles, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances 9.5 % of patients and 2.8 % of cycles, and composite outcomes index 22.3 % of patients and 6.7 % of cycles. Rates varied by type of prophylaxis and tumor, chemotoxicity, initiation day, and prophylaxis duration. There were 1834 musculoskeletal events with 24.7 % of patients reporting bone pain of any grade (mostly mild to moderate), and 148 adverse drug reactions, including 4 serious, were recorded in 76 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and safety outcomes are well within the range of historically reported data for originator filgrastim underscoring the clinical effectiveness and safety of biosimilar filgrastim in daily clinical practice.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: ADVICE (Actual Data of Vomiting Incidence by Chemotherapy Evaluation) study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the incidence of nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), under medical practice conditions and the accuracy with which physicians perceive CINV. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving MEC between April 2012 and May 2013 were included. Patients completed a diary of the intensity of nausea and number of vomiting episodes. Complete response and complete protection were assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 261 patients included, 240 were evaluated. Median age was 64 years, 44.2 % were female and 11.2 % were aged less than 50 years; 95.3 % of patients received a combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) antagonist + corticosteroid as antiemetic treatment. Vomiting within 5 days of chemotherapy administration occurred in 20.8 %, nausea in 42 % and significant nausea in 23.8 % of patients. An increase in the percentage of patients with significant nausea (from 9.4 to 21.7 %) and vomiting (from 9.2 to 16.5 %) was observed from the acute to the delayed phase. Complete response was 84.2 % in the acute phase, 77 % in the late phase and 68.9 % in overall period. Complete protection was 79.5 % in the acute phase, 68.8 % in the late phase and 62.4 % throughout the study period. Physicians estimated prophylaxis would be effective for 75 % of patients receiving MEC, compared with 54.1 % obtained from patients' diary. CONCLUSION: Despite receiving prophylactic treatment, 31 % of patients did not achieve a complete response and 38 % complete protection. In general, nausea was worse controlled than vomiting. The results also showed the late phase was worse controlled than the acute phase in all variables. Healthcare providers overestimated the effectiveness of antiemetic prophylaxis.

Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab monotherapy (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight), as compared with glycoprotein 100, improved overall survival in a phase 3 study involving patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 study of ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 502 patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter) plus placebo, given at weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10, followed by dacarbazine alone every 3 weeks through week 22. Patients with stable disease or an objective response and no dose-limiting toxic effects received ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was significantly longer in the group receiving ipilimumab plus dacarbazine than in the group receiving dacarbazine plus placebo (11.2 months vs. 9.1 months, with higher survival rates in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group at 1 year (47.3% vs. 36.3%), 2 years (28.5% vs. 17.9%), and 3 years (20.8% vs. 12.2%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.3% of patients treated with ipilimumab plus dacarbazine, as compared with 27.5% treated with dacarbazine and placebo (P<0.001). No drug-related deaths or gastrointestinal perforations occurred in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram) in combination with dacarbazine, as compared with dacarbazine plus placebo, improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The types of adverse events were consistent with those seen in prior studies of ipilimumab; however, the rates of elevated liver-function values were higher and the rates of gastrointestinal events were lower than expected on the basis of prior studies. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00324155.).

Outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in cancer: data on a prospective cohort of 138 consecutive patients.

The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to assess the feasibility of outpatient treatment in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE), and to compare the performance of the different prognostic scales available in this setting. Patients were selected for outpatient management according to a set of exclusion criteria. Outcomes at 30 and 90 days of follow-up included thromboembolic recurrences, major bleeding, and all-cause death. The performance of 4 prognostic scales (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index, Geneva Prognostic Score, POMPE-C, and Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad Tromboembólica [RIETE registry]) was evaluated. Of 138 patients, 62 (45%) were managed as outpatients. Incidental PE constituted 47% of the sample. Most patients treated at home had an incidentally detected PE (89%). The rate of recurrence and major bleeding events was similar in both groups. Mortality rates were higher for patients admitted to the hospital compared with outpatients at 30 days (18% vs 3%; P=.06) and 90 days (34% vs 10%; P=.001) of follow-up. None of the patients selected for home treatment required further admission because of PE complications. None of the prognostic models developed for symptomatic PE was significantly associated with 30-day mortality. Improved survival outcomes were observed in incidentally detected PEs compared with acute symptomatic events (overall mortality rates, 3.2% vs 18.4%; P=.006). A large proportion of patients with cancer and PE may be safely treated as outpatients, especially those with incidental PE. Cancer-specific prognostic scales including incidental PE should be developed for the optimal management of PE in this setting.

Filgrastim biosimilar (EP2006): A review of 15 years' post-approval evidence.

Filgrastim is approved for several indications, including reduction of the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for stem cell mobilization. The filgrastim biosimilar, EP2006, has been available in Europe since 2009, and in the United States since 2015. In this time, preclinical and clinical data used to support the approval of EP2006 have been published. These data established the biosimilarity of EP2006 to reference filgrastim in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Additional real-world evidence studies have also demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety of EP2006 compared with reference filgrastim, both in the reduction of neutropenia and in stem cell mobilization in clinical practice. This review summarizes these preclinical, clinical, and real-world data, as well as the available cost-effectiveness data, for EP2006 since its approval 15 years ago.

Nuclear factor-kappa B and interleukin-6 related docetaxel resistance in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous work showed that the NF-κB survival pathway is activated by docetaxel (D) and contributes to D resistance in prostate cancer. In this study we aimed to investigate the dynamics of the relationship between NF-κB and IL-6 in the shift from D-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) to D-resistance in patients and cell lines. METHODS: CRPC tumor samples were tested for NF-κB/p65 and IL-6 by immunohistochemistry. CRPC patients treated with D were also tested for serum IL-6 (ELISA). Two D-resistant cell lines, PC-3R and DU-145R, derived from the CRPC cells PC-3 and DU-145, respectively, were tested for NF-κB activation (EMSA), NF-κB-related genes expression (RT-PCR), NF-κB inhibition (p65 siRNA) and IL-6 and IL-8 soluble levels (ELISA). RESULTS: In CRPC patients treated with D (n = 72), pre-treatment IL-6 level correlated with nuclear NF-κB/p65 tumor staining and response to D, and was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. However, IL-6 level changes under treatment did not correlate with clinical outcome. In PC-3 and DU-145 parental CRPC cells, as well as in D-resistant counterparts, D treatment induced NF-κB activation. In fact, NF-κB inhibition was sufficient to re-sensitize DU-145R cells to D. Despite enhanced NF-κB activity, IL-6 secretion in D-resistant cell lines was reduced and not induced by D treatment. The same occurred with IL-8 cytokine. CONCLUSIONS: These preclinical and clinical results support a role of NF-κB and IL-6 in the resistance to D in CRPC, and support the investigation of targeted therapies to enhance the antitumor activity of D in this patient population.