Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled phase III trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Neutropenia is a common complication from chemotherapy. Mecapegfilgramtim (code name HHPG-19K), a long-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), has been developed. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim. Methods:This was a randomized, controlled non-inferiority study. A total of 339 breast cancer patients who were eligible for (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized assigned into three groups to receive mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg, mecapegfilgrastim fixed dose of 6 mg or filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day in the first cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade ?3 neutropenia in cycle 1. The secondary endpoints included the duration of grade ?3 neutropenia in cycles 2-4, incidence of grade ?3 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia (FN). The safety profile was also evaluated. Results:The mean duration of grade ?3 neutropenia was 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 1.26] days in mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg group, 1.23 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.88) days in mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg group, and 2.06 (95% CI: 1.66, 2.46) days in the filgrastim group. The mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg and filgrastim was -1.00 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.48), the mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg and filgrastim was -0.83 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.30). The upper bounds of 95% CI for the difference between mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim were all <1 day (the predefined non-inferiority margin). For the incidence of grade ?3 and grade 4 neutropenia, the mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia, mecapegfilgrastim showed better performance compared with filgrastim. For the incidence of FN, there was no difference between patients treated with mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim. For safety profile, mecapegfilgrastim of two doses groups were all well-tolerated. Fixed 6 mg dose of mecapegfilgrastim exhibited comparable efficacy and safety in comparison with 100 µg/kg during 4 cycles. Conclusions:Long-acting mecapegfilgrastim (100 µg/kg and fixed 6 mg) is very effective and well tolerated when administered in the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and in consecutive-cycle treatment. In some clinical parameters, mecafilgrastim is non-inferior and even superior to filgrastim. The fixed 6 mg-dose regimen showed similar efficacy and safety profile compared with 100 µg/kg regimen, and would be the preference in clinical practice, due to the convenient once-per-cycle administration and high-degree treatment compliance for the patients. This study provided new evidence for the novel long-acting rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim, which would be a new alternative for clinical practice for prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia.

SUBMITTER: Xu F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6803220 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled phase III trial.

Xu Fengrui F Zhang Yang Y Miao Zhanhui Z Zeng Xiaohua X Wu Biao B Cai Li L Liu Jinping J Wang Shusen S Hu Xichun X Zheng Wenbo W Chen Zhiyue Z Yang Qing Q Jiang Zefei Z

Annals of translational medicine 20190901 18

<h4>Background</h4>Neutropenia is a common complication from chemotherapy. Mecapegfilgramtim (code name HHPG-19K), a long-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), has been developed. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a randomized, controlled non-inferiority study. A total of 339 breast cancer patients who were eligible for (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy w ...[more]

PMID: 31700918

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.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.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/?L) 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.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.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen.MethodsTwo hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L) in Cycle 1 (2-sided CI 95%). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of severe neutropenia (in cycles 2-4), incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir, and safety outcomes.ResultsThe mean duration of severe neutropenia in Cycle 1 was 1.7 (RGB-02) and 1.6 days (reference), with a difference (LS Mean) of 0.1 days (95% CI -0.2, 0.4). Equivalence could be established as the CI for the difference in LS Mean lay entirely within the pre-defined range of ±1 day. This positive result was supported by the analysis of secondary endpoints, which also revealed no clinical meaningful differences. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim were identified.ConclusionsTreatment equivalence in reducing the duration of chemotherapy induced neutropenia between RGB-02 and Neulasta® could be demonstrated. Similar efficacy and safety profiles of the once-per-cycle administration of RGB-02 and the pegfilgrastim reference were demonstrated.Trial registrationThe trial was registered prospectively, prior to study initiation. EudraCT number ( 2013-003166-14 ). The date of registration was 12 July, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundThe most appropriate timing of chemotherapy and hormone therapy administration is a critical issue in early breast cancer patients. The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy of concurrent vs sequential administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and tamoxifen.MethodsWomen with node-positive primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen (20 mg/d for 5 years) during (concurrent arm) or after (sequential arm) adjuvant chemotherapy. Chemotherapy consisted of alternating regimens of cyclophosphamide, epidoxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil every 21 days for a total of 12 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were toxic effects and disease-free survival (DFS). No provision for interim analyses was made in the original study protocol. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression models, adjusted for age, menopausal status, tumor stage, and lymph node and hormone receptor status, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsFrom 1985 to 1992, 431 patients were randomly assigned and studied according to the intention-to-treat principle. After a maximum of 15.4 years of follow-up (median 12.3 years), the estimated actuarial 10-year OS was equivalent for the two study arms (concurrent arm: 111 patients, 66%, 95% CI = 59% to 72%; sequential arm: 114 patients, 65%, 95% CI = 59% to 72%, P = .86). No differences in DFS and toxic effects were evident. Four interim analyses were performed, but no alpha error adjustment was necessary because of the largely negative results of this final analysis (sequential vs concurrent arm: HR of death = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.44, P = .76; HR of relapse = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.52, P = .36).ConclusionsNo statistically significant differences in OS, DFS, and toxic effects between concurrent and sequential adjuvant chemo- and hormone therapies were observed. Our study does not support the superiority of one schedule of chemo- and hormone-therapy administration over the other. However, because of the limited statistical power of the study, these results must be considered with caution.

Project description:PURPOSE:Despite widespread use of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel (FEC-D) chemotherapy in breast cancer, the optimal strategy for primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis remains unknown. A systematic review was therefore performed. METHODS:Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for trials that reported the effectiveness of primary FN prophylaxis with FEC-D chemotherapy. Outcome measures were incidence of FN; treatment-related hospitalizations; chemotherapy dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations; and adverse events from prophylaxis. RESULTS:Of 2,205 identified citations, eight studies (n = 1,250) met our eligibility criteria. Three additional studies (n = 293) were identified from a prior systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 576), one phase IV single-arm trial (n = 69), one prospective observational study (n = 37), and six retrospective studies (n = 861) were identified. Agents investigated were pegfilgrastim (n = 108), filgrastim (n = 1,119), and ciprofloxacin (n = 89). The heterogeneity of studies meant that a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates for patients who received FEC-D with and without primary prophylaxis were 10.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9% to 22.6%) and 23.9% (IQR, 9.2% to 27.3%), respectively. In the absence of primary prophylaxis, FN was more common during docetaxel than during FEC. Data from six studies showed a median rate of dose reductions and delays of 6.1% (IQR, 3.1% to 14.3%) and 19.3% (IQR, 10.5% to 32.8%), respectively, that occurred as a consequence of FN. Toxicity from prophylaxis itself was rarely reported. CONCLUSION:Primary FN prophylaxis is effective in patients who receive FEC-D chemotherapy. The paucity of prospective data makes optimal recommendations about the choice and timing of prophylaxis challenging.

Project description:ImportanceThe role of locoregional radiotherapy in patients with de novo metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) is unclear.ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of locoregional radiotherapy in de novo mNPC.Design, setting, and participantsPatients with biopsy-proven mNPC, who demonstrated complete or partial response (RECIST v1.1) following 3 cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy, were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either chemotherapy plus radiotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Overall, 126 of 173 patients screened were eligible to the study, and randomized to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (n = 63) or chemotherapy alone (n = 63). Median (IQR) follow-up duration was 26.7 (17.2-33.5) months.InterventionsThe chemotherapy regimens were fluorouracil continuous intravenous infusion at 5 g/m2 over 120 hours and 100 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin on day 1, administered every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. Patients assigned to the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group received intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) after chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). The secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.ResultsOverall, 126 patients were enrolled (105 men [83.3%] and 21 women [16.7%]; median [IQR] age, 46 [39-52] years). The 24-month OS was 76.4% (95% CI, 64.4%-88.4%) in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group, compared with 54.5% (95% CI, 41.0%-68.0%) in the chemotherapy-alone group. The study met its primary end point of improved OS (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.77; P = .004) in favor of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Progression-free survival was also improved in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group (stratified HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). No significant differences in acute hematological or gastrointestinal toxic effects were observed between the treatment arms. The frequency of acute grade 3 or higher dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia was 8.1%, 33.9%, and 6.5%, respectively, in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group. The frequency of late severe grade 3 or higher hearing loss and trismus was 5.2% and 3.4%, respectively, in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, radiotherapy added to chemotherapy significantly improved OS in chemotherapy-sensitive patients with mNPC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111460.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled phase III trial.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled phase III trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets