Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Febrile neutropenia (FN) commonly occurs during cancer chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is known to reduce the severity and incidence of FN and infections in patients with cancer. Despite the proven efficacy, G-CSFs are not always prescribed as recommended. We performed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to determine what factors drive the physician preference for FN prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Attributes for the DCE were selected based on literature search and on expert focus group discussions and comprised pain at the injection site, presence of bone pain, associated fever/influenza syndrome, efficacy of prophylaxis, biosimilar availability, number of injections per chemotherapy cycle and cost. Oncologists, in a national database, were solicited to participate in an online DCE. The study collected the responses to the choice scenarios, the oncologist characteristics and their usual prescriptions of G-CSFs in the context of breast, lungs and gastrointestinal cancers. RESULTS: Overall, the responses from 205 physicians were analysed. The physicians were mainly male (61%), with ≤20 years of experience (76%) and working only in public hospitals (73%). The physicians prescribe G-CSF primary prophylaxis for 32% of patients: filgrastim in 46% and pegfilgrastim in 54%. The choice of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was driven by cost and number of injections. Biosimilars were well accepted. CONCLUSION: Cost and convenience of G-CSF drive the physician decision to prescribe or not G-CSF for primary and secondary FN prophylaxes. It is important that these results be incorporated in the optimisation of G-CSF prescription in the clinical setting.

Hot-clot artifact in the lung parenchyma on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography mimicking malignancy with a homolateral non-small cell lung cancer.

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) is an important tool widely used in the oncology to stage and restage various malignancies. Intense focal FDG uptake in the lung parenchyma associated with the absence of anatomical lesion detected on CT can be explained by a lung microembolism, known as hot-clot artifact. We report, to the best of our knowledge, the first case describing a single hot-clot artifact located in the same lung as a histologically proven non-small cell lung cancer.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Combined With First-Line Chemotherapy in Elderly (≥75 Years) Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Although elderly patients are the first concerned by colorectal cancer (CRC), they are underrepresented in clinical trials. The real-world CASSIOPEE study was thus conducted in elderly patients treated for metastatic CRC (mCRC). METHODS: This French prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study aimed to estimate 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and describe treatments, patient autonomy (Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; Balducci scale), and safety over 24 months, in patients older than 75 with mCRC, starting first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (NCT01555762). RESULTS: From 2012 to 2014, 402 patients were included (safety population: n = 383, efficacy population: n = 358). Patient characteristics were as follows: mean age, 81 ± 4 years (<80 years, 46%; 80-85 years, 44%; >85 years, 10%); men, 52%; colon primary tumor, 80%; main metastatic site, liver 66%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance 0-1, 81%. Median PFS was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.3-10.2). It was superior for patients ≤85 years (<80 years: 9.3 months; 80-85 years: 9.5 months) compared with patients >85 years (8.3 months). Median OS was 19.0 months (95% CI, 16.5-21.5) and decreased in the 2 oldest groups (20.6, 17.8, and 13.0 months). Autonomy assessments decreased over time leading to nonconclusive results. Twenty-six percent of patients experienced serious adverse events (SAEs): 7% bevacizumab-related SAEs, and 6% bevacizumab-targeted SAEs. Two fatal bevacizumab-related adverse events were reported (hemorrhagic stroke and intestinal ischemia). CONCLUSIONS: This large French real-world study showed that medically fit older patients with mCRC could have a benefit/risk balance similar to that of younger patients when treated with first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Improvements in geriatric assessments are needed to better define this population.

[Alternative prescription schedules of sunitinib in metastatic kidney cancer: from the underground to the light?]. / Schémas de prescription alternatif du sunitinib dans le cancer du rein métastatique : de l'underground au grand public ?

Sunitinib was the first targeted therapy improving progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the first line of treatment. Classically, sunitinib is administered at a dose of 50 mg/day during four weeks followed by two weeks off (schedule 4/6). This schedule has two pitfalls: intermittent exposure with two weeks "off" and the increase in toxicity during the fourth week. Several alternative prescription schedules were studied with the aim of limiting the intensity of toxicity while maintaining efficacy. This review summarizes the published data on alternative schedules of sunitinib in terms of safety and efficacy. All articles and abstracts on alternative schedule of sunitinib in the mRCC were reviewed. Clinical trials were also searched. Studies evaluating the continuous schedule have not provided evidence of its superiority compared to the 4/6 schedules in terms of activity, tolerance or dose-intensity. Retrospective data of patients treated in a schedule two weeks of treatment "on" one week "off" (schedule 2/3) with sunitinib 50 mg/day show PFS that seem superior to those obtained with a schedule 4/ 6, while having a better safety profile. The alternating schedule of sunitinib 2/3 (50 mg/day) may be a better alternative to schedule 4/6 in terms of tolerance. If toxicity occurs with 50 mg/day on a schedule 4/6, it would probably offer a better alternative in terms of efficiency than dose reduction. The results of ongoing and future studies are expected to prospectively validate the concept.