Optimal timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF after chemotherapy administration for patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration. METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data. RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.

[Use of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in dose-adjusted EPOCH-R therapy].

Dose-adjusted (DA)-EPOCH-R causes profound neutropenia requiring relatively long hospital stays with multiple doses of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). A single-dose pegylated G-CSF (PEG-G-CSF) has been used for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. We retrospectively examined 15 patients (median age 61, range 33-75 years) treated with DA-EPOCH-R. In the first cycle of the DA-EPOCH-R therapy, a G-CSF preparation was used, and since the second cycle, the G-CSF and PEG-G-CSF use groups were divided. The median length of hospitalization after starting chemotherapy in the second-cycle DA-EPOCH-R was significantly shorter with PEG-G-CSF group (n=9) of 9 (7-13) days compared with G-CSF group (n=6) of 18 (15-22) days (P<0.001). Risk factors of febrile neutropenia, such as bone marrow invasion, performance status, serum albumin, and history of febrile neutropenia at the first DA-EPOCH-R cycle or previous chemotherapy were not significantly different for both groups, and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in PEG-G-CSF and G-CSF groups was 2.6% and 46.9%, respectively. These analyses suggest that PEG-G-CSF can be combined with DA-EPOCH-R without compromising treatment outcomes as compared with the daily dose of G-CSF.

Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined. OBJECTIVES: To assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: PEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.

A randomized, multi-center, open-label, phase III study of once-per-cycle DA-3031, a pegylated G-CSF, in comparison with daily filgrastim in patients receiving TAC chemotherapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This multi-center, randomized, phase III study was conducted to demonstrate the non-inferiority of DA-3031 compared with daily filgrastim in patients during the first cycle of chemotherapy for breast cancer in terms of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN). METHODS: Seventy-four patients with breast cancer who were receiving combination chemotherapy with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) were enrolled. All participants were randomized to receive either daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim 100 µg/m2/day for up to 10 days or a single subcutaneous injection of DA-3031 at fixed doses of 6 mg on day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: The mean duration of grade 4 (G4) neutropenia in cycle 1 was 2.08 ± 0.85 days for the filgrastim group and 2.28 ± 1.14 days for the DA-3031 group. The difference between groups was 0.2 ± 1.10 days (95 % confidence interval (CI) = -0.26, 0.66), which supported non-inferiority. No statistically significant differences were observed in nadir absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (154.34/mm3 and 161.75/mm3 for the filgrastim and DA-3031 groups, respectively; P = 0.8414) or in time to ANC recovery (10.03 ± 0.75 and 9.83 ± 1.56 days in the filgrastim and DA-3031 groups, respectively; P = 0.0611) during cycle 1. Serious AEs occurred in six (15.8 %) patients receiving filgrastim and in ten (27.8 %) patients receiving DA-3031; however, none was determined to be related to the study drug. CONCLUSIONS: DA-3031 and daily filgrastim are similar in regard to DSN and safety in breast cancer patients receiving TAC chemotherapy.

A randomized, multicenter, phase II/III study to determine the optimal dose and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegteograstim (GCPGC) on chemotherapy-induced neutropenia compared to pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients: KCSG PC10-09.

PURPOSE: Pegylated granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is frequently used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients undergoing chemotherapy with a high risk of myelosuppression. This phase II/III study was conducted to determine the adequate dose of pegteograstim, a new formulation of pegylated G-CSF, and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegteograstim compared to pegfilgrastim. METHODS: In the phase II part, 60 breast cancer patients who were undergoing DA (docetaxel and doxorubicin) or TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy were randomly selected to receive a single subcutaneous injection of 3.6 or 6.0 mg pegteograstim on day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle. The phase III part was seamlessly started to compare the dose of pegteograstim at selected in phase II with 6.0 mg pegfilgrastim in 117 breast cancer patients. The primary endpoint of both the phase II and III parts was the duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the chemotherapy cycle 1. RESULTS: The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia for the 3.6 mg pegteograstim (n = 33) was similar to that for the 6.0 mg pegteograstim (n = 26) (1.97 ± 1.79 days vs. 1.54 ± 0.95 days, p = 0.33). The 6.0 mg pegteograstim was selected to be compared with the 6.0 mg pegfilgrastim in the phase III part. In the phase III part, the primary analysis revealed that the efficacy of pegteograstim (n = 56) was non-inferior to that of pegfilgrastim (n = 59) [duration of grade 4 neutropenia, 1.64 ± 1.18 days vs. 1.80 ± 1.05 days; difference, -0.15 ± 1.11 (p = 0.36, 97.5 % confidence intervals = 0.57 and 0.26)]. The time to the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery of pegteograstim (≥2000/µL) was significantly shorter than that of pegfilgrastim (8.85 ± 1.45 days vs. 9.83 ± 1.20 days, p < 0.0001). Other secondary endpoints showed no significant difference between the two groups. The safety profiles of the two groups did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Pegteograstim was shown to be as effective as pegfilgrastim in the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in the breast cancer patients who were undergoing chemotherapy with a high risk of myelosuppression.

Four doses of unpegylated versus one dose of pegylated filgrastim as supportive therapy in R-CHOP-14 for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

The primary objective of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the efficacy of a reduced regimen of only four doses of unpegylated filgrastim from day +8 to +11 per cycle with a standard once per cycle administration of pegylated filgrastim to maintain dose-intensity of R-CHOP-14 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone given every 14 d) in previously untreated elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We included 51 patients (median age 66 years, range 60-76). Median dose intensity did not differ between the group of 24 patients receiving four doses of unpegylated filgrastim of each cycle (87·5%) and the group of 27 patients receiving pegylated filgrastim once per cycle on day 2 (89·4%) (P = 0·9). There was also no difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as episodes of neutropenic fever and unplanned hospitalizations. Patient characteristics that negatively influenced dose intensity were reduced performance status, advanced stage disease and poor-risk International Prognostic Index, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 being the most significant factor. In conclusion, a limited support with 4 d of filgrastim appears to be equivalent to pegylated filgrastim administered once per cycle, and appears to be sufficient to maintain dose-intensity of the R-CHOP-14 regimen in elderly patients with DLBCL without risk factors.

Development of Site-Specific PEGylated Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor With Prolonged Biological Activity.

Currently, amino-terminal PEGylated human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (huG-CSF) is used to prevent and treat neutropenia. Although huG-CSF has been used as a drug for more than 20 years, it has three significant drawbacks: (i) it relies on PEG aldehyde for PEGylation of the alpha-amino group of the first amino acid, and this leads to non-specific PEGylation of the epsilon amino group of lysine residues within the G-CSF; (ii) longer-acting G-CSF variants are desirable to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-associated neutropenia; and (iii) G-CSF cannot be administered on the day of chemotherapy. In an attempt to overcome the above drawbacks, we engineered cysteine variants of G-CSF to facilitate the maleimide PEG-based site-specific PEGylation that leads to a highly homogenous PEGylated product. Importantly, we have demonstrated that 20 kDa thiol-reactive PEG conjugated by maleimide chemistry to the Cys2 G-CSF variant exhibits leukocyte proliferative activity similar to that of the commercially available G-CSF conjugated with aldehyde PEG in a neutropenia mice model. Moreover, we have demonstrated that PEGylation of the cysteine variant of huG-CSF with higher molecular weight PEGs, such as 30 kDa PEG and 40 kDa PEG, leads to significantly prolonged leukocyte proliferation activity compared to the variant conjugated with 20 kDa PEG. Importantly, even a half-dose of the engineered variant conjugated with 40 kDa PEG exhibited significantly longer biological activity than the commercially available 20 kDa PEGylated huG-CSF. Finally, we have demonstrated that administration of the engineered variant conjugated with 40 kDa PEG on the day of administration of cyclophosphamide for inducing neutropenia in mice can alleviate neutropenia through leukocyte proliferation. In summary, this study provides the design of site-specific PEGylated huG-CSF variants with improved therapeutic potential. It opens the possibility of long-acting and same-day prophylactic administration of G-CSF after chemotherapy drug regimens. These results may pave the way for the development of potential G-CSF derivatives possessing longer half-lives and favorable clinical attributes.

Clinical Safety and Efficacy of Secondary Prophylactic Pegylated G-CSF in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated with mFOLFIRINOX: A Single-center Retrospective Study.

Objective Although modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX, mFFX) is widely used for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), maintenance of the standard dose intensity is often difficult due to the high incidence of neutropenic events. Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (Peg G) is a long-lasting G-CSF agent that is applicable for prophylaxis against neutropenic complications. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical safety and efficacy of mFFX combined with secondary prophylaxis using Peg G in advanced PDAC patients. Methods Advanced PDAC patients who had received more than two cycles of mFFX were analyzed. The clinical safety and efficacy were compared between patients in the Peg G group and those in the non-Peg G group in a retrospective manner. Results Among 45 patients treated with mFFX, 28 exhibited grade 3-4 neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. Among these 28 patients, 4 who received only 1 or 2 mFFX cycles were excluded from this study. Finally, 11 patients in the Peg G group and 13 in the non-Peg G group were enrolled. The combination therapy with Peg G and mFFX markedly prolonged the progression-free survival compared with the non-Peg G group, and its effects were associated with a reduced incidence of neutropenic events as well as lower rates of dosage reduction, delayed chemotherapy due to neutropenic events and altered blood cell counts after chemotherapy. Conclusion The scheduled administration of secondary prophylactic Peg G prolonged the progression-free survival in patients treated with mFFX. The combination therapy of Peg G and mFFX may be recommended in patients who exhibit grade 3-4 neutropenic events after prior mFFX cycles.