Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

Developments in continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The evolving paradigm of continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches in multiple myeloma (MM) offers prolonged disease control and improved outcomes compared to traditional fixed-duration approaches. Potential benefits of long-term strategies include sustained control of disease symptoms, as well as continued cytoreduction and clonal control, leading to unmeasurable residual disease and the possibility of transforming MM into a chronic or functionally curable condition. "Continuous therapy" commonly refers to administering a doublet or triplet regimen until disease progression, whereas maintenance approaches typically involve single-agent or doublet treatment following more intensive prior therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or doublet, triplet, or even quadruplet induction therapy. However, the requirements for agents and regimens within these contexts are similar: treatments must be tolerable for a prolonged period of time, should not be associated with cumulative or chronic toxicity, should not adversely affect patients' quality of life, should ideally be convenient with a minimal treatment burden for patients, and should not impact the feasibility or efficacy of subsequent treatment at relapse. Multiple agents have been and are being investigated as long-term options in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), including the immunomodulatory drugs lenalidomide and thalidomide, the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab, elotuzumab, and isatuximab. Here we review the latest results with long-term therapy approaches in three different settings in NDMM: (1) maintenance treatment post ASCT; (2) continuous frontline therapy in nontransplant patients; (3) maintenance treatment post-frontline therapy in the nontransplant setting. We also discuss evidence from key phase 3 trials. Our review demonstrates how the paradigm of long-term treatment is increasingly well-established across NDMM treatment settings, potentially resulting in further improvements in patient outcomes, and highlights key clinical issues that will need to be addressed in order to provide optimal benefit.

Adoption of triplet therapy and clinical outcomes in routine practice among newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not receiving frontline stem cell transplant in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Immunomodulator (IMID) and proteasome inhibitor (PI) triplet frontline therapy (FT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) trials improve overall survival (OS); reported outcomes in routine practice are lacking. Authors compared outcomes in NDMM patients in the USA by use of triplet vs doublet FTs. METHODS: In this retrospective study of NDMM patients without FT transplant between 1/1/2008 and 6/30/2017, FT was categorized as: PI+IMID-triplet (≥ 3 drugs including PI+IMID), non-PI+IMID-triplet (≥ 3 drugs, not PI+IMID), doublet (≤ 2 drugs). Univariate and multivariate analyses identified FT triplet predictors and compared time-to-next-treatment (TTNT)/OS. RESULTS: Among 4,982 NDMM patients, 68% and 32% initiated doublet and triplet FTs (PI+IMID: 36% in 2017). Triplet FT predictors included: age, cytogenetics, ISS stage, certain CRAB symptoms. Median TTNTPI+IMID-triplet = 18.9 months vs 13.7 (non-PI+IMID-triplet) and 16.5 months (doublet) FTs (P< 0.01); adjusted HRPI+IMID-triplet = 0.86; P= 0.009; HRnon-PI+IMID-triplet = 1.10; P = 0.083 vs doublet FT. Median OSPI+IMID-triplet = 58.7 months vs 43.6 (non-PI+IMID-triplet) and 45.7 months (doublet) FTs (P< 0.01); adjusted HRPI+IMID-triplet = 0.83; P= 0.016; HRnon-PI+IMID-triplet = 1.02; P = 0.727 vs doublet FT. CONCLUSION: PI+IMID-triplet FT is not utilized for most non-frontline-transplant NDMM patients in routine care but is associated with prolonged TTNT/OS.

Oral ixazomib maintenance following autologous stem cell transplantation (TOURMALINE-MM3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT. METHODS: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3-35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7-33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.

Ixazomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are among the backbones of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment; however, their long-term use can be limited by parenteral administration and treatment-related toxicities. Ixazomib, the first oral PI to enter the clinic, is approved around the world, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with MM who have received at least one prior therapy. Areas covered: This review summarizes the clinical data leading to approval of ixazomib; its pharmacology, efficacy, and safety. Building on the data in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), it also reviews the available clinical trial data for ixazomib across the MM treatment algorithm in newly diagnosed MM, RRMM, and as maintenance therapy, and looks ahead to ongoing clinical trials and the expanding role of ixazomib in these indications. Expert opinion: Ixazomib is an efficacious and well-tolerated addition to the treatment armamentarium for RRMM, with benefit as a long-term, continuous therapy for all patients, including 'poor prognosis' patients, such as those with advanced stage disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and elderly and frail patients. Data from ongoing clinical studies are expected to expand the role of ixazomib across the MM treatment algorithm and in a broader range of combination regimens.

Interpreting clinical trial data in multiple myeloma: translating findings to the real-world setting.

Substantial improvements in survival have been seen in multiple myeloma (MM) over recent years, associated with the introduction and widespread use of multiple novel agents and regimens, as well as the emerging treatment paradigm of continuous or long-term therapy. However, these therapies and approaches may have limitations in the community setting, associated with toxicity burden, patient burden, and other factors including cost. Consequently, despite improvements in efficacy in the rigorously controlled clinical trials setting, the same results are not always achieved in real-world practice. Furthermore, the large number of different treatment options and regimens under investigation in various MM settings precludes the feasibility of obtaining head-to-head clinical trial data, and there is a temptation to use cross-trial comparisons to evaluate data across regimens. However, multiple aspects, including patient-related, disease-related, and treatment-related factors, can influence clinical trial outcomes and lead to differences between studies that may confound direct comparisons between data. In this review, we explore the various factors requiring attention when evaluating clinical trial data across available agents/regimens, as well as other considerations that may impact the translation of these findings into everyday MM management. We also investigate discrepancies between clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness through a literature review of non-clinical trial data in relapsed/refractory MM on novel agent-based regimens and evaluate these data in the context of phase 3 trial results for recently approved and commonly used regimens. We thereby demonstrate the complexity of interpreting data across clinical studies in MM, as well as between clinical studies and routine-care analyses, with the aim to help clinicians consider all the necessary issues when tailoring individual patients' treatment approaches.

Phase 1/2 trial of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in patients with previously untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma.

Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to enter the clinic. Given the efficacy of bortezomib in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, we studied the combination of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (ICd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and patients with measurable disease, irrespective of transplant eligibility, were enrolled. The phase 1 was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cyclophosphamide in the combination. Patients received ixazomib 4 mg (days 1, 8, 15), dexamethasone 40 mg (days 1, 8, 15, 22), and cyclophosphamide 300 or 400 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15, 22; cycles were 28 days. We enrolled 51 patients, 10 in phase 1 and 41 patients in phase 2. The median age was 64.5 years (range: 41-88); 29% had high or intermediate risk FISH. The MTD was 400 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide weekly. The best confirmed response in all 48 patients included ≥ partial response in 77%, including ≥ VGPR in 35%; 3 patients had a sCR. The response rate for all 48 evaluable patients at 4-cycles was 71%; the median time to response was 1.9 months. Common adverse events included cytopenias, fatigue and GI intolerance. ICd is a convenient, all oral combination that is well tolerated and effective in NDMM.

Patient-reported health-related quality of life from the phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone versus placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

TOURMALINE-MM1 is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma following 1-3 prior lines of therapy. The study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the IRd arm versus placebo-Rd arm (median 20.6 vs 14.7 months, hazard ratio 0.74, P = .01), with limited additional toxicity. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint of TOURMALINE-MM1. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ-C30) and Multiple Myeloma Module 20 (QLQ-MY20) were completed at screening, the start of cycles 1 and 2, every other cycle, the end of treatment, and every 4 weeks until progression. Over median follow-up of 23.3 and 22.9 months in the IRd and placebo-Rd arms, mean QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL scores were maintained from baseline over the course of treatment in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between groups. EORTC QLQ-C30 function domain scores were also generally maintained from baseline; similarly, physical, emotional, and social function domains were maintained with IRd versus placebo-Rd, with slightly higher mean change from baseline scores at earlier time points with IRd. Findings from this double-blind study demonstrate that addition of ixazomib to Rd significantly improved efficacy while HRQoL was maintained, reflecting the limited additional toxicity seen with IRd versus placebo-Rd, and support the feasibility of long-term IRd administration.

Dose and Schedule Selection of the Oral Proteasome Inhibitor Ixazomib in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Clinical and Model-Based Analyses.

BACKGROUND: The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib has been approved by regulatory authorities around the world, including in the United States and the European Union, for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least one prior therapy, based on the pivotal phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantitatively characterize the benefit-risk profile of ixazomib in relapsed/refractory MM in support of the approved dose and schedule. METHODS: We report early-phase study data and exposure-response analyses of TOURMALINE-MM1 data that support the selection of the recommended ixazomib dose and schedule. RESULTS: Single-agent ixazomib studies showed a favorable efficacy/safety profile with weekly versus twice-weekly dosing; a phase I/II study of ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) identified a weekly ixazomib dose that offered an acceptable efficacy/safety profile. In IRd exposure-response analyses from TOURMALINE-MM1, ixazomib systemic exposure was not a significant predictor of progression-free survival or probability of response. Significant associations were observed between ixazomib exposure and the probability of grade ≥3 anemia and thrombocytopenia, and grade ≥2 diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, peripheral neuropathy, and rash. Additionally, higher ixazomib exposure was associated with lower lenalidomide relative dose intensity. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses support a favorable benefit-risk profile for weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles, which was selected for the phase III TOURMALINE registration program. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00932698, NCT00963820, NCT01217957, NCT01564537.

Denosumab treatment of prostate cancer with bone metastases and increased urine N-telopeptide levels after therapy with intravenous bisphosphonates: results of a randomized phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with bone metastases have high rates of RANKL driven bone resorption and an increased risk of skeletal morbidity. Osteoclast mediated bone resorption can be assessed by measuring urine N-telopeptide and can be inhibited by denosumab, a fully human antibody against RANKL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (111) had bone metastases from prostate cancer, other solid tumors or multiple myeloma, 1 or more bone lesions and urine N-telopeptide greater than 50 nM bone collagen equivalents per mM creatinine (urine N-telopeptide greater than 50) despite the use of intravenous bisphosphonates. Patients were stratified by cancer type and screening urine N-telopeptide, and randomized to continue intravenous bisphosphonates every 4 weeks or receive 180 mg subcutaneous denosumab every 4 weeks or 180 mg every 12 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with urine N-telopeptide less than 50 at week 13. We report the efficacy results for the subset of patients with prostate cancer. RESULTS: Patients with prostate cancer represented 45% (50 of 111) of the study population. At week 13, 22 of 32 (69%) patients in the denosumab arms had urine N-telopeptide less than 50 vs 3 of 16 (19%) in the intravenous bisphosphonates cohort. At week 25, 22 of 32 (69%) denosumab treated patients continued to have urine N-telopeptide less than 50 vs 5 of 16 (31%) treated with intravenous bisphosphonates. Grade 4, asymptomatic, reversible hypophosphatemia, possibly related to denosumab, was reported in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer related bone metastases and increased urine N-telopeptide despite intravenous bisphosphonate treatment, denosumab normalized urine N-telopeptide levels more frequently than ongoing intravenous bisphosphonates.

Denosumab: first data and ongoing studies on the prevention of bone metastases.

Bone metastases are associated with a major patient and healthcare burden resulting from the impact and the management of associated skeletal-related events (including spinal cord compression, pathologic fracture and surgery or radiation to bone). In preclinical studies, RANK Ligand inhibition has been shown to prevent the development of bone and some visceral metastases. Clinical studies are ongoing to evaluate whether the fully human monoclonal antibody denosumab, which targets RANK Ligand, can prevent the development of bone metastases in high-risk patients. Findings from a phase 3 study in men with high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer demonstrated that denosumab (120 mg every 4 weeks) significantly increased bone metastasis-free survival (primary endpoint) by 4.2 months (median) versus placebo (HR 0.85 [0.73, 0.98]; P = 0.028). This is the first study to demonstrate the clinical benefit of a bone-targeted agent in this setting. Further evaluation of denosumab in the prevention of metastatic disease is warranted and ongoing in other tumor types.

Evaluating the impact of Relative Total Dose Intensity (RTDI) on patients' short and long-term outcome in taxane- and anthracycline-based chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer- a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy dose delay and/or reduction lower relative total dose intensity (RTDI) and may affect short- and long-term outcome of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. METHODS: Based on 933 individual patients' data of from 3 randomized MBC trials using an anthracycline and taxane we examined the impact of RTDI on efficacy and determined the lowest optimal RTDI for MBC patients. RESULTS: Median time to disease progression (TTDP) and overall survival (OS) of all patients were 39 and 98 weeks. Overall higher RTDI was correlated with a shorter TTDP (log-rank p = 0.0525 for 85% RTDI cut-off). Proportional hazards assumption was violated, there was an early drop in the TTDP-curve for the high RTDI group. It was explained by the fact that patients with primary disease progression (PDP) do have a high RTDI per definition. Excluding those 114 patients with PDP the negative correlation between RTDI and TTDP vanished. However, non-PDP patients with RTDI-cut-off levels <85% showed a shorter OS than patients with higher RTDI levels (p = 0.0086). CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing RTDI above 85% appears to improve long-term outcome of MBC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. Lowering RTDI had no negative influence on short term outcome like OR and TTDP.

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

We investigated the incidences of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related complications in elderly (> or =65 years) breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy supported by pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis (PP; n=150) or current practice (CP) neutropenia management (n=104) in a subanalysis of NeuCuP (Neulasta) vs. current practice neutropenia management). Studies involving regimens with moderately high to high (> or =15%) FN risk were identified by literature review, and individual patient data were integrated for analysis. FN incidence was 6% (95% CI: 2, 10%) in the PP group and 24% (95% CI: 16, 32%) in the CP group. In cycle 1, incidences were 3 and 15%, respectively. FN-related hospitalisation incidence was 5% (PP group) and 15% (CP group), while dose reductions (>/=15%) occurred in 15 and 29% of patients. Pegfilgrastim provided effective PP in elderly patients, a population who may be vulnerable to chemotherapy-related FN and for whom current practice may not provide adequate protection.

Denosumab treatment of prostate cancer with bone metastases and increased urine N-telopeptide levels after therapy with intravenous bisphosphonates: results of a randomized phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with bone metastases have high rates of RANKL driven bone resorption and an increased risk of skeletal morbidity. Osteoclast mediated bone resorption can be assessed by measuring urine N-telopeptide and can be inhibited by denosumab, a fully human antibody against RANKL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (111) had bone metastases from prostate cancer, other solid tumors or multiple myeloma, 1 or more bone lesions and urine N-telopeptide greater than 50 nM bone collagen equivalents per mM creatinine (urine N-telopeptide greater than 50) despite the use of intravenous bisphosphonates. Patients were stratified by cancer type and screening urine N-telopeptide, and randomized to continue intravenous bisphosphonates every 4 weeks or receive 180 mg subcutaneous denosumab every 4 weeks or 180 mg every 12 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with urine N-telopeptide less than 50 at week 13. We report the efficacy results for the subset of patients with prostate cancer. RESULTS: Patients with prostate cancer represented 45% (50 of 111) of the study population. At week 13, 22 of 32 (69%) patients in the denosumab arms had urine N-telopeptide less than 50 vs 3 of 16 (19%) in the intravenous bisphosphonates cohort. At week 25, 22 of 32 (69%) denosumab treated patients continued to have urine N-telopeptide less than 50 vs 5 of 16 (31%) treated with intravenous bisphosphonates. Grade 4, asymptomatic, reversible hypophosphatemia, possibly related to denosumab, was reported in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer related bone metastases and increased urine N-telopeptide despite intravenous bisphosphonate treatment, denosumab normalized urine N-telopeptide levels more frequently than ongoing intravenous bisphosphonates.

Use of pegfilgrastim support on day 9 to maintain relative dose intensity of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving a day 1 and 8 CMF regimen.

AIM: In several commonly used regimens, chemotherapy doses are split across different days of the cycle. We aimed to determine the feasibility of growth factor support with once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim in this setting. METHODS: This phase II study in breast cancer patients assessed the utility of a single 6 mg subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim administered on day 9 of an intravenous (IV) "split" CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2), methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy regimen administered on days 1 and 8 and repeated every 28 days for 6 cycles. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, with 49 completing the study. For the primary endpoint, 48 patients (83%) received >or=85% of the relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy over all 6 cycles (95% confidence interval [CI], 71-91%). Across all chemotherapy cycles, 41 patients (71%) received all scheduled cycles on time and most patients (n=49, 84%) received >or=85% of the planned dose of all chemotherapy agents in all cycles. In total, 295/319 cycles (92%) were delivered on schedule and >or=85% of the planned dose of all chemotherapy agents were administered in 309/319 cycles (97%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in only 2 patients (3%). There were no grade 4 adverse events related to pegfilgrastim. DISCUSSION: Day 9 pegfilgrastim administration was well tolerated and provided effective protection against neutropenia in patients receiving IV CMF on days 1 and 8, allowing chemotherapy to be delivered on time and at the scheduled dose in most patients.

A phase 2 pilot study of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for mobilizing peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Growth factors are frequently used to aid peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization from bone marrow. This phase 2 study examined the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim for mobilizing peripheral blood progenitors cells for autologous transplantation. DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma received one cycle of mobilizing chemotherapy (ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide, ICE). Twenty-four hours later they were randomized, double-blind, to receive a single dose of pegfilgrastim 6 mg or 12 mg, or filgrastim 5 mug/kg/day (until the end of leukapheresis). Following leukapheresis (collection phase), patients rested or received one or two 'salvage' cycles of ICE. High-dose BEAM chemotherapy was then given before peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation. The primary end-point was the patients' mean yield of CD34(+) cells/kg during the collection phase. RESULTS: Ninety patients were randomized and received a study drug; 63% completed the collection phase. The patients' mean (95% CI) CD34(+) cell harvest per leukapheresis was 0.8 (0.5-1.4), 0.8 (0.5-1.6) and 1.2 (0.7-2.0)x10(6) cells/kg for the pegfilgrastim 6 mg, pegfilgrastim 12 mg and filgrastim groups, respectively. Twenty (69%), 17 (59%) and 23 (72%) patients in these three groups achieved the targeted minimum harvest (>/=2 x 10(6) cells/kg). The mean total harvests were 1.7, 1.4 and 2.2 x 10(6) cells/kg, respectively. Post-transplantation, the median days to absolute neutrophil count recovery (>/=0.5 x 10(9)/L) were 12, 11, and 11, respectively. Pegfilgrastim and filgrastim were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim (6 or 12 mg) was effective for mobilizing peripheral blood progenitors cells in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. These data may aid the design of studies to clarify optimal dosing and leukapheresis with pegfilgrastim.

Feasibility of two dose-dense FEC regimens with growth factor support for adjuvant therapy in patients with early breast cancer: results from a randomised study of the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG).

Addition of epirubicin to adjuvant chemotherapy can provide important benefits for patients with early breast cancer, but the optimal dose remains unclear. Further improvements can be achieved with dose-dense regimens, but densification of fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (FEC) has proved difficult, with FEC(60) providing little benefit over standard chemotherapy and FEC(100) associated with toxicity. We investigated the feasibility of two intermediate dose-dense FEC regimens. Patients were randomised to six cycles of FEC(75) or FEC(90), with all three drugs given on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. Patients also received pegfilgrastim 6 mg as a single subcutaneous injection on day 2 of each cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects receiving > or =85% relative dose intensity and was achieved by 96% and 88% of patients in the FEC(75) and FEC(90) arms, respectively. Of 147 FEC(75) infusions, 4.1% were delayed, while 9.8% of 143 FEC(90) infusions were delayed. The most common reasons for delay were adverse events and personal/logistical reasons. One dose reduction occurred during the study (FEC(90)), related to diarrhoea. Grade 3-4 haematological toxicities were reported in two patients in the FEC(90) arm. There were no incidences of febrile neutropenia during the study. The most common adverse events were increases in liver enzymes and gastrointestinal events; no event resulted in discontinuation. Only one patient (FEC(90)) experienced serious adverse events (vomiting and throat oedema). In conclusion, dose-dense FEC(75 )and FEC(90) are feasible with pegfilgrastim support. These regimens are associated with a very low risk of Grade 3-4 toxicity.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Filgrastim in Patients with Haematological Malignancies Undergoing Matched-related Allogeneic Bone Marrow Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) may aid engraftment post high-dose chemo-/radiotherapy in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT); however, the effects of G-CSF on graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), relapse, and survival are not well defined. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study, the effects of the G-CSF Filgrastim on neutrophil and platelet recovery, and on clinical outcomes were evaluated. Patients (12-55 years) receiving an allogeneic BMT for a haematological malignancy were randomized to receive Filgrastim 5 microg/kg or placebo. Study treatment was continued until patients achieved an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) >/=0.5 x 10(9)/L, or until day 42. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (Filgrastim, N = 25; placebo, N = 26) were evaluable. Patients treated with Filgrastim had significantly faster engraftment with ANC >/=0.5 x 10(9)/L being achieved after a median (range) of 15.0 (1.0-22.0) days vs. 19.0 (15.0-28.0) days for placebo (P< 0.0001). The incidence of GvHD was comparable for both groups. During the limited follow-up (2 years), Filgrastim had no adverse effect on mortality and possibly reduced the rate of relapse.

Pegfilgrastim support for full delivery of BEACOPP-14 chemotherapy for patients with high-risk Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of a phase II study.

The primary endpoint of this feasibility study was to determine whether pegfilgrastim support could enable the delivery of the full dose of BEACOPP chemotherapy every 14 days on schedule. Forty-one patients with high-risk Hodgkin's lymphoma were randomized to receive pegfilgrastim (6 mg) on day 4 or 8 of each cycle. Eighty-one percent of cycles administered were delivered at full dose and on schedule (FDOS). Response was retrospectively assessed in 27 patients at 6 months; 23 of these 27 patients (85%) achieved a complete response and one (4%) achieved a partial response. Toxicities were mostly moderate in intensity. These results support the feasibility of delivering full dose, on schedule BEACOPP-14, chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support.

Neulasta (pegfilgrastim): a once-per-cycle option for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Neutropenia is a significant hematologic complication induced by cytotoxic chemotherapy. The clinical consequences of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia are often severe and can be potentially life-threatening. Patients who develop febrile neutropenia often need to be hospitalized, reducing their quality of life and increasing costs. Neutropenia can also compromise the ability to deliver chemotherapy at the full dose and on schedule. To help prevent the occurrence of neutropenia, patients with a high risk of developing chemotherapy-related infections may be given prophylactic colony-stimulating factors. Filgrastim is a recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor that has been widely used (in over 3 million patients) for over 12 years in the management of neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim is an approved, long-acting, next generation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor that has similar clinical benefits to filgrastim but has novel pharmacokinetic properties. Pegfilgrastim shows at least comparable safety and efficacy to filgrastim, with the added benefit of simplified once-per-chemotherapy-cycle dosing. In addition, two randomized, controlled pivotal trials have shown that a single dose of pegfilgrastim given once per cycle led to a lower observed incidence of febrile neutropenia following myelosuppressive chemotherapy, compared with daily injections of filgrastim. Clinical trials are currently expanding the clinical experience with pegfilgrastim in a variety of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. In addition to prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in 21- and 28-day regimens, future studies are examining the suitability of pegfilgrastim in dose-dense therapy and other cancer settings.