Dataset Information

Neutropenia management and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients with solid tumours receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy--findings from clinical practice.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Clinical practice adherence to current guidelines that recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for patients at high (≥20 %) overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) was evaluated.

Methods

Adult patients with breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), or ovarian cancer were enrolled if myelotoxic chemotherapy was planned, and they had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk ≥20 %. The primary outcome was FN incidence.

Results

In total, 1,347 patients were analysed (breast cancer, n = 829; NSCLC, n = 224; SCLC, n = 137; ovarian cancer, n = 157). Patients with breast cancer exhibited fewer individual FN risk factors than patients with other cancers and were far more likely to have received a high-FN-risk chemotherapy regimen. However, a substantial proportion of all patients (45-80 % across tumour types) did not receive G-CSF PP in alignment with investigator risk assessment and guideline recommendations. FN occurred in 127 patients overall (9 %, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8-11 %), and incidence was higher in SCLC (15 %) than other tumour types (8 % in ovarian and NSCLC, 9 % in breast cancer). A post hoc analysis of G-CSF use indicated that G-CSF prophylaxis was not given within the recommended timeframe after chemotherapy (within 1-3 days) or was not continued across all cycles in 39 % of patients.

Conclusions

FN risk assessment was predominantly based on clinical judgement and individual risk factors, and guidelines regarding G-CSF PP for patients at high FN risk were not consistently followed. Improved education of physicians may enable more fully informed neutropenia management in patients with solid tumours.

SUBMITTER: Krzemieniecki K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3913845 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveInappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level.MethodsPatients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed.ResultsOverall, 86,189 patients received ?4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1-60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n?=?400) and in 70% (64.5-73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n?=?400).ConclusionProphylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Eflapegrastim, a novel, long-acting recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), consists of a rhG-CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open-label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1. RESULTS:Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n =?196; pegfilgrastim, n =?210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% (n =?31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% (n =?51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% (p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (-0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority (p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim (p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms. CONCLUSION:These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G-CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.