Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis to develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly administered to cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy, especially when incidence rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) surpasses 20%. While primary prophylaxis with G-CSF has been proven effective in preventing FN in patients with cancer, there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy in specifically, lung cancer. Our systematic review focused on the efficacy of G-CSF primary prophylaxis in lung cancer. METHODS: We extracted studies on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) using the PubMed, Ichushi Web, and Cochrane Library databases. Two reviewers assessed the extracted studies for each type of lung cancer and conducted quantitative and meta-analyses of preplanned outcomes, including overall survival, FN incidence, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and musculoskeletal pain. RESULTS: A limited number of studies were extracted: two on NSCLC and six on SCLC. A meta-analysis was not conducted owing to insufficient data on NSCLC. Two case-control studies explored the efficacy of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF in patients with NSCLC (on docetaxel and ramucirumab therapy) and indicated a lower FN frequency with G-CSF. For SCLC, meta-analysis of five studies showed no significant reduction in FN incidence, with an odds ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.03-5.56, P = 0.48). Outcomes other than FN incidence could not be evaluated due to low data availability. CONCLUSION: Limited data are available on G-CSF prophylaxis in lung cancer. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF may be weakly recommended in Japanese patients with NSCLC undergoing docetaxel and ramucirumab combination therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy for breast cancer can cause neutropenia, increasing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and serious infections. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis has been explored to mitigate these risks. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the "Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development" using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing using G-CSF as primary prophylaxis in invasive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and FN incidence. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis, and five RCTs were meta-analyzed for FN incidence. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in FN incidence with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (risk difference [RD] = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.43, p = 0.04). Evidence for improvement in OS with G-CSF was inconclusive. Four RCTs suggested a tendency for increased pain with G-CSF, but statistical significance was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is strongly recommended for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN. While the impact on OS is unclear, the benefits of reducing FN are considered to outweigh the potential harm of increased pain.

Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for patients with non-round cell soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an essential supportive agent for chemotherapy-induced severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, "Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for non-round cell soft tissue sarcoma (NRC-STS)?" and CQ #2, "Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve NRC-STS treatment outcomes?" for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: A literature search was performed on the primary prophylactic use of G-CSF for NRC-STSs. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival, incidence of febrile neutropenia, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: Eighty-one and 154 articles were extracted from the literature search for CQs #1 and #2, respectively. After the first and second screening, one and two articles were included in the final evaluation, respectively. Only some studies have addressed these two clinical questions through a literature review. CONCLUSION: The clinical questions were converted to future research questions because of insufficient available data. The statements were proposed: "The benefit of primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STS" and "The benefit of intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STSs." G-CSF is often administered as primary prophylaxis when chemotherapy with severe myelosuppression is administered. However, its effectiveness and safety are yet to be scientifically proven.

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUD: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days. METHODS: This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes. RESULTS: Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/µL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. CONCLUSION: A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations. RESULTS: After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records. CONCLUSION: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

Effectiveness and safety of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor priming regimen for acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guideline for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remain poor. Although the concomitant use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and anti-chemotherapeutic agents has been investigated to improve the antileukemic effect on AML, its usefulness remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effects of G-CSF priming as a remission induction therapy or salvage chemotherapy. METHODS: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to the priming effect of G-CSF using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and risk ratios (RRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and summarized. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted and accessed the 278 records identified during the initial screening, and 62 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility in second screening. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 10 in the meta-analysis. A systematic review revealed that priming with G-CSF did not correlate with an improvement in response rate and overall survival (OS). The result of the meta-analysis revealed the tendency for lower relapse rate in the G-CSF priming groups without inter-study heterogeneity [RR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), p = 0.08; I2 = 4%, p = 0.35]. In specific populations, including patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk and those receiving high-dose cytarabine, the G-CSF priming regimen prolonged OS. CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF priming in combination with intensive remission induction treatment is not universally effective in patients with AML. Further studies are required to identify the patient cohort for which G-CSF priming is recommended.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for patients with Ewing sarcomas: a systematic review for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma can lead to severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, "Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma?" and CQ #2, "Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve Ewing sarcoma treatment outcomes?". METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi web databases, including English and Japanese articles published from 1990 to 2019. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival (OS), febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence, infection-related mortality, quality of life (QOL), and pain. RESULTS: Twenty-five English and five Japanese articles were identified for CQ #1. After screening, a cohort study of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide chemotherapy with 851 patients was selected. Incidence of FN was 60.8% with G-CSF and 65.8% without; statistical tests were not conducted. Data on OS, infection-related mortality, QOL, or pain was unavailable. Consequently, CQ #1 was redefined as a future research question. As for CQ #2, we found two English and five Japanese papers, of which one high-quality randomized controlled trial on G-CSF use in intensified chemotherapy was included. This trial showed trends toward lower mortality and a significant increase in event-free survival for 2-week interval regimen with the G-CSF primary prophylactic use compared with 3-week interval. CONCLUSION: This review indicated that G-CSF's efficacy as primary prophylaxis in Ewing sarcoma, except in children, is uncertain despite its common use. This review tentatively endorses intensified chemotherapy with G-CSF primary prophylaxis for Ewing sarcoma.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer, Japanese clinical guideline for appropriate use of G-CSF: clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel (DTX) is commonly used as a primary chemotherapy, and cabazitaxel (CBZ) has shown efficacy in patients who are DTX resistant. Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy is currently used with CBZ treatment in routine clinical care in Japan. METHODS: In this study, we performed a systematic review following the Minds guidelines to investigate the effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer and to construct G-CSF guidelines for primary prophylaxis use during chemotherapy. A comprehensive literature search of various electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi) was performed on January 10, 2020, to identify studies published between January 1990 and December 31, 2019 that investigate the impact of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during CBZ administration on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Ultimately, nine articles were included in the qualitative systematic review. Primary G-CSF prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was difficult to assess in terms of correlation with overall survival, mortality from infection, and patients' quality of life. These difficulties were owing to the lack of randomized controlled trials comparing patients with and without primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during CBZ administration. However, some retrospective studies have suggested that it may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: G-CSF may be beneficial as primary prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during dose-dense chemotherapy for urothelial cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, dose reduction or withdrawal is often preferred in the management of adverse events in the treatment of urothelial cancer. It is also important to maintain therapeutic intensity in order to control disease progression and thereby relieve symptoms, such as hematuria, infection, bleeding, and pain, as well as to prolong the survival. In this clinical question, we compared treatment with primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF to maintain therapeutic intensity with conventional standard therapy without G-CSF and examined the benefits and risks as major outcomes. A detailed literature search for relevant studies was performed using PubMed, Ichu-shi Web, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and evaluated independently by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and the risk ratios with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated and summarized in a meta-analysis. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, two of which were reviewed in the meta-analysis of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) therapy, and one randomized controlled study showed a reduction in the incidence of FN. Primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF may be beneficial, as shown in a randomized controlled study of dose-dense MVAC therapy. However, there are no studies on other regimens, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen (dose-dense MVAC).

Real-world data analysis of perioperative chemotherapy patterns, G-CSF use, and FN status in patients with early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe perioperative chemotherapy patterns, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, and febrile neutropenia (FN) status in patients with early breast cancer (EBC) using real-world data in Japan. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used anonymized claims data. The included patients were ≥ 18 years old, were female, and had breast cancer diagnosis and surgery records between January 2010 and April 2020. Measures included perioperative chemotherapy, G-CSF use (daily and primary prophylaxis [PP]), and FN and FN-related hospitalization (FNH), all examined annually. Perioperative chemotherapy was examined separately for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive/negative (HER2±). A multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the factors associated with FNH. RESULTS: Of 32,597 patients, those with HER2 + EBC treated with anthracycline-based regimens followed by taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab increased since 2018, and those with HER2 - EBC treated with doxorubicin/epirubicin + cyclophosphamide followed by taxane and dose-dense regimens increased after 2014. The proportion of patients prescribed daily G-CSF declined after 2014, whereas that of pegfilgrastim PP increased. The incidence proportion of FN remained at approximately 24-31% from 2010 to 2020, while that of FNH declined from 14.5 to 4.0%. The odds of FNH were higher in those aged ≥ 65 years and lower with pegfilgrastim PP administration. CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing use of escalated regimens in the last 5-6 years, FNH continuously declined, and the odds of FNH were lower among patients treated with pegfilgrastim PP. These results may suggest the contribution of PP in part to suppressing FNH levels over the last 5-6 years.

Phase II trial of biweekly administration with eribulin after three cycles of induction therapy in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (JACCRO BC-03).

PURPOSE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is usually incurable; treatment aims to maximize patients' function and quality of life (QOL). Eribulin is a standard treatment in patients with MBC pretreated with anthracycline and taxane; however, the best administration schedule is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective phase II trial of patients with luminal MBC, we administered biweekly eribulin to patients who completed a three-cycle induction treatment. RESULTS: Sixty patients with hormone-receptor-positive and HER2-negative MBC were enrolled; 40 obtained stable disease (SD) or better efficacy after induction therapy, after which they were switched to biweekly maintenance administration. The median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients who switched to maintenance therapy was 15.21 weeks (95% CI 9.71-22.14), starting on the first day of maintenance therapy. Overall survival (OS) in patients who switched to maintenance therapy was 21.39 months (95% CI 18.89-32.89). PFS and OS in the whole population starting from the registration date were 19.00 weeks (95% CI 17.00-25.00) and 21.52 months (95% CI 16.23-24.25), respectively. PFS from the enrollment date for patients who received maintenance therapy was 25.29 weeks (95% CI 19.14-32.14). Patients who achieved complete response or partial response during induction therapy had significantly longer PFS compared to patients with SD. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of biweekly administration of eribulin at maintenance was nonsignificant. However, less frequent visits are convenient, and reduced dose intensity improves safety. Biweekly administration, besides dose reduction, could be an acceptable option for patients who are unable to maintain a standard regimen.

Pertuzumab retreatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: A randomized, open-label phase III study (PRECIOUS).

No standard options existed for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer that progresses after second-line trastuzumab emtansine therapy before 2020. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of pertuzumab retreatment after disease progression following pertuzumab-containing therapy for HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer for the first time. This randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial was undertaken in 93 sites in Japan. Eligible patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who had received pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy as first- and/or second-line therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to: (i) pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and physician's choice chemotherapy (PTC), or (ii) trastuzumab and physician's choice chemotherapy (TC). The primary end-point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Between August 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, 219 patients were randomized to PTC (n = 110) or TC (n = 109). Median follow-up was 14.2 months (interquartile range, 9.0-22.2), and median PFS was 5.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-6.6) with PTC and 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.2-4.8) with TC (stratified hazard ratio 0.76 [95% CI upper limit 0.967]; p = 0.022). Progression-free survival was improved by adding pertuzumab in all prespecified subgroups. The PTC arm showed a trend towards better overall survival and duration of response, but similar objective response and health-related quality of life. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar between groups except for diarrhea. Pertuzumab retreatment contributes to disease control for HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with pertuzumab-containing regimens.

Efficacy of the eribulin, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab combination therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, single arm, phase II study (JBCRG-M03 study).

Purpose To date, it is not clear which anticancer agent is useful in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab As the first and second selective regimens for advanced or metastatic breast cancer (AMBC), this multicenter, open-label, phase II trial (JBCRG-M03: UMIN000012232) presents a prespecified analysis of eribulin in combination with pertuzumab and trastuzumab. Methods We enrolled 50 patients with no or single prior chemotherapy for HER2-positive AMBC during November 2013-April 2016. All patients received adjuvant or first-line chemotherapy with trastuzumab and a taxane. The treatment comprised eribulin on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle and trastuzumabplus pertuzumab once every 3 weeks, all administered intravenously. While the primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were the response rate and safety. Results Of 50 patients, 49 were eligible for safety analysis, and the full analysis set (FAS) included 46 patients. We treated 8 (16%) and 41 (84%) patients in first- and second-line settings, respectively. While 11 patients (23.9%) had advanced disease, 35 (76.1%) had metastatic disease. The median PFS was 9.2 months for all patients [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.0-11.4]. In the FAS, 44 patients had the measurable lesions and the complete response rate (CR) was 17.4%, and partial response rate (PR) was 43.5%. The grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (5 patients, 10.2%), including febrile neutropenia (2 patients, 4.1%), hypertension (3 patients, 6.1%), and other (1 patient). The average of the left ventricular ejection fraction did not decline markedly. No symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction was observed. Conclusions In patients with HER2-positive AMBC, eribulin, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab combination therapy exhibited substantial antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile. Hence, we have started a randomized phase III study comparing eribulin and a taxane in combination with pertuzumab and trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive AMBC. Trial registration ID: UMIN-CTR: UMIN000012232.

Real-world effectiveness of post-trastuzumab emtansine treatment in patients with HER2-positive, unresectable and/or metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective observational study (KBCSG-TR 1917).

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is a second-line standard therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer. Evidence regarding post-T-DM1 treatments is currently lacking. We evaluated the effectiveness of post-T-DM1 drug therapy in patients with HER2-positive, unresectable and/or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, real-world clinical data of female patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who had a history of T-DM1 treatment were consecutively collected from five sites in Japan. We investigated the effectiveness of post-T-DM1 therapy by evaluating the real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR). Tumor response was assessed by investigators according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) guidelines. Subgroup and exploratory analyses according to background factors were also undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 205 patients who received T-DM1 treatment between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018, 128 were included in this study. Among the 128 patients analyzed, 105 (82%) patients received anti-HER2 therapy and 23 (18%) patients received regimens without anti-HER2 therapy. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) rwPFS, TTF, and OS were 5.7 (4.8-6.9) months, 5.6 (4.6-6.4) months, and 22.8 (18.2-32.4) months, respectively. CBR and ORR (95% CI) were 48% (38.8-56.7) and 23% (15.1-31.4), respectively. Cox-regression analysis showed that an ECOG PS score of 0, a HER2 immunohistochemistry score of 3+, recurrent type, ≥12 month duration of T-DM1 therapy, and anti-HER2 therapy were independent variables for rwPFS. An exploratory subgroup analysis of regimens after T-DM1 showed that those with anti-HER2 therapy had a median rwPFS of 6.3 and those without anti-HER2 therapy had a median rwPFS of 4.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world setting in Japan, several post-T-DM1 regimens for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including continuation of anti-HER2 therapy, showed some effectiveness; however, this effectiveness was insufficient. Novel therapeutic options are still needed for further improvement of PFS and OS in later treatment settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000038296 ; registered on 15 October 2019.

Multicentre, phase II study of eribulin in combination with S-1 in patients with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the synergistic effect of S-1 and eribulin in preclinical models. In addition, our phase I study revealed the recommended dose for the phase II study of the combination therapy in advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients pre-treated with anthracycline and taxane. Our current study reports on the efficacy and safety of the combined use of eribulin and S-1 in patients with ABC and poor prognosis. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who received prior anthracycline- and/or taxane-based therapy were assigned to receive a combination therapy of eribulin (1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days) and S-1 (65 mg/m2, on days 1 to 14, every 21 days) for advanced/metastatic disease. All patients had at least one clinicopathological factor such as being oestrogen receptor negative, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) receptor negative, presence of visceral involvement, presence of three or more metastatic sites, or having a disease-free interval shorter than 2 years. The primary endpoint was the independent-reviewer assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were clinical benefit rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: This study enrolled 33 patients. Confirmed ORR was 33.3% (95% CI: 17.3 to 52.8). Median PFS was 7.5 months (95% CI: 4.0 to 14.3). Median OS time was not reached during the current experimental periods. The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia (68.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of eribulin and S-1 is safe and effective for treatment in patients with ABC and poor prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials UMIN000015049 , date of registration: September 5th 2014.

A randomized, open-label, Phase III trial of pertuzumab retreatment in HER2-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with pertuzumab, trastuzumab and chemotherapy: the Japan Breast Cancer Research Group-M05 PRECIOUS study.

The PRECIOUS study (UMIN000018202) is being conducted as a multicenter, randomized, open-label Phase III study to determine if retreatment with pertuzumab is more effective than conventional treatment in HER2-positive locally advanced (LA)/metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with pertuzumab, trastuzumab and chemotherapy. Patients are randomized 1:1 into chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with or without pertuzumab groups. The latest regimen before enrollment did not include pertuzumab, and the number of previous chemotherapy regimens for LA/MBC did not exceed three. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include independent reviewer-assessed progression-free survival, progression-free survival in patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine as the latest regimen, response rate, response duration, overall survival, safety and health-related quality of life. Target accrual is 370 patients, allowing the observation of 325 events, yielding an 80% power for detection of a hazard ratio of 0.739 with a one-sided 5% level of significance.

Safety and effectiveness of eribulin in Japanese patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a post-marketing observational study.

Background This large-scale study was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of eribulin for the treatment of inoperable or recurrent breast cancer in real-world settings in Japan. Methods Between July and December 2011, eligible patients with inoperable or recurrent breast cancer receiving eribulin for the first time were centrally registered and observed for 1 year. Eribulin was administered intravenously (1.4 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle. The primary endpoint was the frequency and intensity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and time to treatment failure (TTF). Results Of 968 patients registered at 325 institutions, 951 and 671 were included in the safety and effectiveness analyses, respectively. In the safety population, ADRs were observed in 841 patients (88.4%). The most common (≥15% incidence) were neutropenia (66.6%), leukopenia (62.4%), lymphopenia (18.4%), and peripheral neuropathy (16.8%). The most common grade ≥ 3 ADRs (>5% incidence) were neutropenia (59.8%), leukopenia (50.5%), lymphopenia (16.1%), and febrile neutropenia (7.7%). In the effectiveness population, ORR was 16.5% (95% confidence interval: 13.7, 19.4). The median TTF was 127 days (95% confidence interval: 120, 134). Conclusions The safety and effectiveness profile of eribulin was consistent with prior studies. Eribulin had a favorable risk-benefit balance when used in real-world clinical settings.