Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor Research Articles

TROPHY-U-01 cohort 4: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in combination with cisplatin (Cis) in platinum (PLT)-naïve patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC).

TPS581 Background: Cis-based combination chemotherapy regimens with gemcitabine or methotrexate, vinblastine, and doxorubicin are commonly used as initial treatment for mUC. However, only a fraction of pts maintain a durable response. Alternative Cis-based combinations with improved efficacy while maintaining tolerability are needed. SG is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) composed of an anti-trophoblast cell-surface antigen-2 (Trop-2) antibody coupled to SN-38 (a topoisomerase-I inhibitor) via a proprietary hydrolyzable linker. In vitro/in vivo urinary bladder cancer models suggest that the combination of SG and Cis resulted in additive antitumor activity over either agent alone (data on file). In the phase 2 registrational TROPHY-U-01 study, SG monotherapy resulted in a 27% objective response rate (ORR) and a median overall survival (OS) of 10.9 months with a manageable, mostly non–Cis-overlapping toxicity profile in heavily pretreated pts with mUC (Tagawa et al, J Clin Oncol. 2021). These results led to accelerated approval of SG by the FDA in 2021 for pts with locally advanced or mUC who previously received PLT-containing chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. We hypothesized that SG and Cis in combination may improve efficacy/safety over available first-line mUC regimens. TROPHY-U-01 Cohort 4 study will evaluate the safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of this novel combination. Methods: TROPHY-U-01 (NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label, global phase 2 trial. Cohort 4 will evaluate combination SG and Cis in PLT-naive pts with mUC or unresectable locally advanced disease. Key eligibility requirements include Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1; no prior anticancer monoclonal antibody or ADC therapy within 4 weeks of study drug initiation; no history of active interstitial lung disease or noninfectious pneumonitis; adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Pts will be treated with Cis at 70 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle (if creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥60 mL/min) or at a split dose of Cis at 35 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle (if CrCl 50-59 mL/min) followed by SG (5, 7.5, or 10 mg/kg) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. The recommended phase 2 dose will be the dose in which ≤30% dose-limiting toxicities are noted in cycle 1. Combination therapy will continue for up to 6 cycles, followed by SG and avelumab maintenance given until progression. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is not allowed in cycle 1 of the safety lead-in phase. Primary endpoint is ORR per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, duration of response, and clinical benefit rate per BICR and investigator assessment. OS and safety will be assessed. Enrollment is ongoing; ̃60 pts expected across ̃30 sites in North America and Europe. Clinical trial information: NCT03547973.

Budget impact analysis of trilaciclib for decreasing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly manifests as neutropenia, anemia, and/or thrombocytopenia, is a frequent and severe complication of standard treatment regimens for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Trilaciclib is a first-in-class myeloprotective therapy indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression when administered prior to a platinum-/etoposide-containing regimen or topotecan-containing regimen for ES-SCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in adults with ES-SCLC from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of introducing trilaciclib to a hypothetical 1 million-member health insurance plan. The model compared 2 market scenarios: a current scenario of standard treatments for ES-SCLC without trilaciclib, and an alternative scenario of standard treatment plus trilaciclib. Population, clinical, and cost inputs were derived from published literature and trilaciclib clinical trial data. Model outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), costs of treatment, costs of AE management, total cost, and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs. The budget impact of trilaciclib was calculated as the difference in cost (2021 US dollars) between the 2 scenarios over a 1- to 5-year time horizon. Scenario and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated total of 301 patients were eligible for treatment with trilaciclib over a 5-year period. The use of trilaciclib was estimated to reduce the number of myelosuppressive AEs over a 5-year period (events avoided included 108 for neutropenia, 7 for febrile neutropenia, 23 for anemia, and 46 for thrombocytopenia) compared with the scenario without trilaciclib. The adoption of trilaciclib was associated with a cost saving of $801,254 ($0.013 PMPM) over 5 years. The acquisition cost for trilaciclib ($3,704,199) was offset by the reduction in AE management cost ($4,282,748) and reduction in prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use ($222,704). The cost savings associated with trilaciclib began in year 1 (total $34,388; $0.003 PMPM) and accrued over time. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition cost of trilaciclib is projected to be offset by a reduction in the costs of managing AEs related to myelosuppression when added to standard chemotherapy regimens for ES-SCLC. The net budget impact of trilaciclib is estimated to be a cost saving. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc., and implemented by ZS Associates, an independent consultancy that collated the model inputs and performed the budget impact analysis. The study sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. The journal open access fee was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Moran, Chioda, and Huang are employed by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Chioda and Huang report stocks and stock options for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Goyal and Deniz are employed by ZS Associates. Goyal reports consulting fees from G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Abraham reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. MacDonald reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz. Deniz reports no disclosures. A synopsis of the current study was presented in poster format at the Virtual AMCP Annual Meeting, April 12-16, 2021.

Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in primary prophylaxis of early infection in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

PurposeThis study sought to compare the efficacy of prophylactic long-acting and standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on febrile neutropenia, early infections, and treatment delay in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) receiving the therapeutic regimen of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd).MethodsA prospective study with 68 consecutive patients with MM was conducted in three regional hospitals. Participants were randomly treated with the VRd regimen in combination with prophylactic long-acting G-CSF (treatment group) or prophylactic standard G-CSF (control group). The primary endpoints were the incidence rates of febrile neutropenia, early infection, and treatment delays. The secondary endpoint was clinical outcomes.ResultsThirty-three patients were assigned to the treatment group, and thirty-five patients were assigned to the control group. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 6.1% and 17.1% in the treatment and control groups, respectively (p = 0.297). However, the rates of early infection and treatment delay were markedly lower in the treatment group than in the control group (6.1% vs. 25.7% and 9.1% vs. 31.4%; p < 0.05). Notably, all early infections occurred during the first four cycles of VRd therapy, and the most common type of infection was pneumonia. No significant difference in clinical efficacy was found between the two groups. All participants achieved at least partial remission.ConclusionsProphylactic administration of domestic long-acting G-CSF markedly reduced the rates of early infection and treatment delay as compared with standard G-CSF in patients newly diagnosed with MM. Notably, all early infections occurred during the first four cycles of VRd therapy. As such, it seems appropriate to administer long-acting G-CSF with the aim of primary prophylaxis of early infection in the setting of newly diagnosed MM.

Prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor use in children with acute lymphoblastic leukeima

Prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor use in children with acute lymphoblastic leukeima

Underutilisation of prophylactic G-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy

Docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, especially in patients with node-negative or low-risk node-positive breast cancer. Guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent febrile neutropenia. In this study, we aimed to explore the use of G-CSF as a primary prophylactic and determine the factors influencing its use. This retrospective study used nationwide claims data from the National Inpatient Sample compiled by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in South Korea from 2018. The claims data included 10% of inpatients admitted at least once in 2018 and 1% of outpatients who were not admitted. Female patients with breast cancer who received an adjuvant TC regimen after surgery were selected. Primary prophylactic G-CSF was defined as G-CSF prescribed within two days of the first cycle of TC. The factors influencing its utilisation were investigated using the chi-square test and a multiple logistic regression model. A total of 229 patients were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients who received primary prophylactic G-CSF treatment after the first cycle of TC was 55.5%. The factors positively influencing G-CSF utilization were patients’ age ≥65 years, location (i.e. metropolitan areas), and the type of healthcare facility (i.e. non-tertiary hospitals). The use of prophylactic G-CSF in patients with breast cancer who received the adjuvant TC regimen was insufficient. The use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis should be emphasised to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia among patients receiving a myelosuppressive TC regimen.

Clinical Outcomes of Secondary Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Breast Cancer Patients at a Risk of Neutropenia with Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy

Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy has been a standard regimen for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) with an intermediate risk (10–20%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). Secondary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is considered in patients receiving AC-based chemotherapy; however, relevant studies are limited. Here, we retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 320 patients who completed adjuvant AC-based chemotherapy from September 2016 to September 2020. Approximately 46.6% of the patients developed severe neutropenic events (SNE) during AC-based chemotherapy. Secondary prophylaxis of G-CSF reduced the risk of recurrent SNE (p < 0.01) and the relative dose intensity (RDI) < 85% (p = 0.03) in patients who had experienced SNE during AC-based chemotherapy. Age ≥ 65 years (p = 0.02) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) > 60 IU/L (p = 0.04) were significant risk factors for RDI < 85%. The incidences of FN, grade 4 neutropenia, unscheduled hospitalization, and interruption to the dosing regimen were reduced in patients administered secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF (before vs. after administration: FN, 19.4% vs. 4.6%; grade 4 neutropenia, 86.1% vs. 14.8%; unscheduled hospitalization, 75.9% vs. 11.1%; interruption to the dosing regimen, 18.5% vs. 8.3%). This study indicated the importance of active intervention of G-CSF use to prevent recurrent SNE and improve clinical outcomes in patients with breast cancer who receive AC-based chemotherapy.

Effect of Levofloxacin Prophylaxis on Rates of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients Receiving DA-EPOCH-R Chemotherapy for Aggressive Lymphomas

Introduction: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious potential adverse event of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (DA-EPOCH-R: etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and rituximab, with doses adjusted to induce neutropenia of < 0.5 x 10 9/L) is a chemoimmunotherapy regimen used for aggressive lymphomas including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, double/triple hit, Burkitt, primary mediastinal, and HIV-associated large cell lymphoma. It is associated with high rates of FN (13-25% of cycles) despite use of prophylactic Septra and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Fluoroquinolone antibiotics have been used in various hematological malignancies to reduce infection rates while on chemotherapy, but this strategy has never been reported with DA-EPOCH-R. This study was conducted to assess the impact of adding routine Levofloxacin prophylaxis on FN and infection rates in patients receiving DA-EPOCH-R.Methods: This is a combined cohort study comparing the patients who received DA-EPOCH-R for newly diagnosed aggressive lymphoma at the London Regional Cancer Program in London, Ontario, Canada before and after the initiation of routine Levofloxacin prophylaxis in July 2020. The prospective cohort received Levofloxacin 500 mg x 7 days with each cycle starting on cycle day 8 in addition to standard supportive care with Septra and G-CSF. The primary objective was the rate of febrile neutropenia. Secondary objectives included days hospitalized, deaths related to infections, and adverse events secondary to Levofloxacin.Results: Thirty patients who received DA-EPOCH-R in the 5 years preceding the initiation of routine prophylactic Levofloxacin were included in the retrospective cohort. Median age was 58 (range 18-79), 66% were male, and 90% had stage III/IV disease. Total number of cycles of DA-EPOCH-R received was 110, with a median of 4 cycles per patient (range: 1-6). FN developed in 14 patients (46%), and complicated a total of 20 cycles (18%) of DA-EPOCH-R. There were 19 hospital admissions due to FN, with a median duration of hospitalization of 12 days (range 3-120). Two patients died, both due to infection.Thirteen patients have been treated so far in the prospective cohort, 12 of whom received levofloxacin prophylaxis. Median age was 59 (range 23-69), 66% were male, and 76% had stage III/IV disease. Total number of cycles of DA-EPOCH-R received was 60, with a median of 5 cycles per patient (range: 1-6 ). Only 1 patient (8%) developed FN, which complicated a total of 3 cycles (5%) of chemotherapy. All 3 episodes of FN resulted in hospitalization for a median duration of 30 days (range 20-49). There have been no deaths due to infection in this cohort thus far. No concerning adverse effects from Levofloxacin have been observed.Conclusions: Although enrollment in the prospective cohort is ongoing, preliminary data are highly encouraging, with significantly lower rates of FN and death due to infection observed since the introduction of routine Levofloxacin prophylaxis. The addition of Levofloxacin to standard prophylaxis with Septra and G-CSF seems to be an effective way to mitigate the risks to patients on DA-EPOCH-R for aggressive lymphomas, and this strategy is worthy of further study. DisclosuresLam: Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SeaGen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Phua: NovoNordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria.

Neoadjuvant Therapy with Concurrent Docetaxel, Epirubicin, and Cyclophosphamide (TEC) in High-Risk HER2-Negative Breast Cancers.

Concurrent anthracycline and taxane is an effective and efficient way to deliver neoadjuvant chemotherapy for HER2-negative breast cancers. Data on efficacy and tolerance to 6cycles of concurrentdocetaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TEC)is limited. All patients with HER2-negative breast cancers who received neoadjuvant TEC from January 2013 to December 2019 were reviewed. A total of 71 patients [57 luminalB disease; 14 triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)] received neoadjuvant TEC with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 26.3% and 28.6% for luminalB and TNBC, respectively. With median follow-up of 48.9months, 3years disease-free survival was 85.9%, and 3years overall survival was 89.6%. Non-hematological toxicities were common but the majority was grade1 or 2. The most common grade3 or 4 toxicity were hematological, including neutropenia (26.8%) and anemia (15.5%). There was no cardiotoxicity observed. Half of the patients had at least one dose reduction but all patients completed the planned 6cycles and had breast surgery done. Six cycles of TEC with prophylactic G-CSF is an effective and tolerable neoadjuvant regime for HER2-negative breast cancers. Hematological toxicities were the most common toxicities. Although many patients required dose reduction, all patients completed treatment and there was no observed cardiotoxicity.

Assessing febrile neutropenia outcomes in patients receiving primary versus secondary prophylactic G-CSF treatment therapy with intermediate neutropenic risk chemotherapy regimens.

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Currently, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment to prevent neutropenia and its complications varies widely in clinical practice with no standardization for intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens. The purpose of this study was to assess neutropenic outcomes in patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens who receive primary versus secondary prophylactic G-CSFs. This is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients who received intermediate risk chemotherapy regimens and at least one dose of G-CSF therapy. 121 patients were included and were divided into primary (n = 76) or secondary prophylaxis (n = 45) groups. The primary outcome for this study was the incidence of neutropenic episodes per course of treatment. The secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who experienced delays in chemotherapy doses, the number of chemotherapy dose reductions, and the number of subsequent treatment delays. The incidence of neutropenic episodes over the course of therapy was 0.42 episodes in the primary group compared to 1.52 episodes in the secondary group (p < 0.05). 10.5% of patients in the primary group versus 54.3% of patients in the secondary group experienced chemotherapy dose delays (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in chemotherapy dose reductions or in the average number of FN risk factors between groups. This retrospective, cohort study determined that patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy regimens should receive primary prophylaxis, regardless of risk factors in order to decrease episodes of neutropenia and chemotherapy dose delays.

Association of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use with chemotherapy dose modifications and relative dose intensity (RDI) among breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens for febrile neutropenia (FN).

314 Background: FN is a primary driver of chemotherapy modification and reduced RDI. Breast cancer patients often receive regimens with high risk ( &gt; 20%) for FN. PP G-CSF use is recommended to decrease incidence of infection, as manifested by FN. Real-world evidence describing the association of G-CSF with reduced RDI in breast cancer patients is lacking. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record data from 2011 to 2019 of adult female breast cancer patients initiating high-risk for FN chemotherapy regimens. PP G-CSF (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, or biosimilars) use was assessed in the first and subsequent cycles of chemotherapy overall and by modality (on-body injector [OBI] vs. pre-filled syringe [PFS]). Standard dose was defined by NCCN guidelines. RDI was defined with respect to dose and timing of delivery: (delivered dose intensity/standard dose intensity)*100 and categorized as &lt; 85% vs ≥85%. Characteristics were described by G-CSF use and adjusted relative risks (ARRs) were estimated for the association between G-CSF use and RDI, adjusting for age, serum hemoglobin, ECOG, HER2 status, and HR status. Results: There were 27,812 breast cancer patients included with a median age of 57 years. Most (90%) received PP-G-CSF. Four cycles of TC (docetaxel + cyclophosphamide) was the most common regimen prescribed (36%) and 82% of these patients received PP-G-CSF support in the first cycle, with OBI given more often than PFS (62% vs 38%). Second most common was dd AC-T Q1W (doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel) and 98% of these patients received PP G-CSF (59% OBI vs 41% PFS). 80% of G-CSF users (vs 48% of those with no G-CSF) completed 4 or more cycles of chemotherapy (all regimens had ≥4 planned cycles). G-CSF users had a significant reduction in risk of RDI &lt; 85% in Cycle 1 (ARR: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 – 0.85) and Cycle 2 (ARR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.59 – 0.97). At the overall chemotherapy course level, the risk of RDI &lt; 85% was not significantly different by G-CSF use (ARR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 - 1.08). There was no significant difference in risk of reduced RDI between OBI and PFS (ARR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94 - 1.35). Conclusions: This study revealed that 90% of breast cancer patients receiving high-risk for FN chemotherapy received PP-G-CSF support and completed more cycles than those who did not receive G-CSF. G-CSF users had lower risk of a reduced RDI in Cycles 1 and 2.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of febrile neutropenia risk with TCH(P) in HER2-positive breast cancer.

Docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab, with or without pertuzumab (TCH(P)), has become the preferred (neo)adjuvant regimen for HER2-positive breast cancer. However, its associated febrile neutropenia (FN) risk is unclear: pivotal studies reported FN risks < 10%, but in clinical practice, a high FN rate (> 20%) was observed. This systematic review and meta-analysis determine the FN risk associated with TCH(P) and the indication for primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PP G-CSF). The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched for full-text English articles reporting the FN incidence in early breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant TCH(P). The primary endpoint was the pooled crude FN incidence in patients treated without PP G-CSF using the random effects method. Secondary endpoints were the FN risk with PP G-CSF support, age-related differences in FN and differences in risk with TCH versus TCHP. Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review. The pooled estimates of FN incidences were 27.6% (95% CI 18.6 to 37.1) in patients who did not receive PP G-CSF (primary meta-analysis, 9 studies, n = 889) versus 5.0% (95% CI 2.6 to 8.0) in patients administered PP G-CSF (secondary meta-analysis, 7 studies, n = 445). Two studies reported non-significant age-related differences in FN. The risk comparison between TCH and TCHP was inconclusive. The crude FN risk associated with (neo)adjuvant TCH(P) is over 20%, the upper limit above which the international guidelines unanimously advise PP G-CSF administration. G-CSF prophylaxis effectively reduces FN risk and should become the standard of care with (neo)adjuvant TCH(P).

A Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Framework for Optimal Doxorubicin Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Regimens in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Introduction: To mitigate the risk of neutropenia during chemotherapy treatment of triple-negative breast cancer, prophylactic and supportive therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered concomitant to chemotherapy. The proper timing of combined chemotherapy and G-CSF is crucial for treatment outcomes. Methods: Leveraging our established mathematical model of neutrophil production by G-CSF, we developed quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) framework to investigate how modulating chemotherapy dose frequency and intensity can maximize antitumour effects. To establish schedules that best control tumour size while minimizing neutropenia, we combined Gompertzian tumour growth with pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models of doxorubicin and G-CSF, and our QSP model of neutrophil production. Results: We optimized a range of chemotherapeutic cycle lengths and dose sizes to establish regimens that simultaneously reduced tumour burden while minimizing neutropenia. Our results suggest that cytotoxic chemotherapy with doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 every 14 days provides effective control of tumour growth while mitigating neutropenic risks. Conclusion: This work suggests future avenues for optimal regimens of chemotherapy with prophylactic G-CSF support. Importantly, the algorithmic approach that we developed can aid in balancing the anticancer and the neutropenic effects of both drugs, and therefore contributes to rational considerations in clinical decision-making in triple-negative breast cancer.

Impact of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on docetaxel-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening complication of Docetaxel-based chemotherapy regimens (DBRs). Prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) can reduce the risk of FN. This study investigated the effect of G-CSF on FN in patients receiving DBRs for breast cancer. Patients treated between 2015 and 2017 were identified from the hospital's pharmacy database and their medical records were examined retrospectively. Data from patients' first four cycles of DBR were collected. FN rate, FN associated length of hospital stay (FN-LOS), and chemotherapy dose modification/delay due to FN were compared between patients who did (G-CSF group) or did not (non-GCSF group) receive prophylactic G-CSF. Of the 276 included patients, 83.3% received a DBR as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, and 50% received docetaxel as combination therapy. Prophylactic G-CSF was administered with the first cycle of a DBR in 69.9% of patients who were significantly less likely to experience FN compared to the non-G-CSF group (6.2% vs. 15.7%; odds ratio: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.16-0.82]; p = 0.020). Collectively and after the 4 DBR treatment cycles, FN rate (4.8 vs. 8.5; odds ratio: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.30-0.97]; p = 0.043) and the mean FN-LOS (3.55 vs. 5.28 days; t = -2.22; p = 0.037) were reduced in the G-CSF group. There was no difference in DBR dose delay/reduction between both groups in cycles 2-4. In patients receiving DBRs for breast cancer, prophylactic G-CSF significantly reduced both the rate of FN and duration of hospitalization for FN.

Risk factors for neutropenic fever in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients with primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.

Background/AimsFebrile neutropenia (FN) interferes with the proper chemotherapy dose density or intensity in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) patients. Chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) ± rituximab has an intermediate FN risk. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support is recommended for patients with other host-related risk factors.MethodsWe evaluated the risk factors for FN-related admission in NHL patients who have received primary G-CSF (lenograstim) prophylaxis.ResultsData from 148 patients were analyzed. The incidence of neutropenic fever was 96 events (12.2%), and the median period was 3.85 days (range, 0 to 5.9); the median duration of neutropenia was 4.21 days (range, 3.3 to 5.07). Eighty-three FN-related admissions were reported. Advanced age (> 60 years), female sex, a low albumin level, and prednisone use were associated with FN-related admission in multivariable analysis (p = 0.010, p < 0.001, and p = 0.010, respectively). A comparison between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with R-CHOP and pegylated G-CSF and those treated with R-CHOP and lenograstim did not reveal significant differences in the FN-related admission rate between the two groups, although the lenograstim-treated group had a higher incidence of severe neutropenia.ConclusionsElderly patients, female patients, and patients with low albumin levels need to be actively followed-up for FN even when primary prophylaxis with G-CSF has been used.

Continuous Intravenous Administration of Granulocyte-Colony-Stimulating Factors-A Breakthrough in the Treatment of Cancer Patients with Febrile Neutropenia.

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) remains one of the most challenging problems in medical oncology and is a very severe side effect of chemotherapy. Its late consequences, when it is recurrent or of a severe grade, are dose reduction and therapy delays. Current guidelines allow the administration of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for profound FN (except for the case when a pegylated form of G-CSF is administrated with prophylactic intention) in addition to antibiotics and supportive care. Methods: This is a prospective study that included 96 patients with confirmed malignancy, treated with chemotherapy, who developed FN during their oncological therapy, and were hospitalized. They received standard treatment plus a dose of G-CSF of 16 µg/Kg/day IV continuous infusion. Results: The gender distribution was almost symmetrical: Male patients made up 48.96% and 51.04% were female patients, with no significance on recovery from FN (p = 1.00). The patients who received prophylactic G-CSF made up 20.21%, but this was not a predictive or prognostic factor for the recovery time from aplasia (p = 0.34). The median chemotherapy line where patients with FN were included was two and the number of previous chemotherapy cycles before FN was three. The median serological number of neutrophils (PMN) was 450/mm3 and leucocytes (WBC) 1875/mm3 at the time of FN. Ten patients possess PMN less than 100/mm3. The median time to recovery was 25.5 h for 96 included patients, with one failure in which the patient possessed grade 5 FN. Predictive factors for shorter recovery time were lower levels of C reactive protein (p < 0.001) and procalcitonin (p = 0.002) upon hospital admission and higher WBC (p = 0.006) and PMN (p < 0.001) at the time of the provoking cycle of chemotherapy for FN. The best chance for a shorter duration of FN was a short history of chemotherapy regarding the number of cycles) (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Continuous IV administration of G-CSF could be an alternative salvage treatment for patients with profound febrile neutropenia, with a very fast recovery time for neutrophiles.

British Society for Haematology guidelines for the management of adult myelodysplastic syndromes.

British Society for Haematology guidelines for the management of adult myelodysplastic syndromes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care activities at a Uruguayan mastology teaching unit: Preliminary results.

e12502 Background: After the government declared a health emergency due to COVID-19 on March, 2020, the Mastology Teaching Unit (UDAM) providing care to breast cancer patients tried to ensure adequate oncological care, and to protect patients from the virus infection and serious complications due to a possible state of immunosuppression. Towards this objective, the Department of Clinical Oncology developed guidelines with some treatment modifications. Objective: To assess the health care activities of the UDAM during the period considered as the “peak” of the pandemic, since its beginning to June 30, 2020. Methods: This is an observational study that collected data from the electronic clinical record system called Oncology Electronic Health Record (HCEO) during the aforementioned period. Results: There werea total of 293 medical appointments (221 in person), through which 131 patients were attended to. The number of medical appointments decreased by 16.7% compared to the same period in 2019 (352 appointments). Of the patients who were attended to during the “peak” period, 109 (83.2%) were on systemic onco-specific treatment and 22 (16.8%) were attended to for disease control. The medical appointments were scheduled to evaluate the continuity of treatment and treatment modifications if necessary (95 patients; 72.5%), for disease control (17; 12.9%), for first-time consultation (12; 9.1%) and to assess paraclinical studies (7; 5.3%). The patients were on hormone therapy (HT) (81 patients; 74%), chemotherapy (CT) (21; 19%), and anti-HER2 therapies (9; 8%). A total of 20 treatments were initiated, 14 with HT and 6 with CT. Of the 21 patients on CT, 14 (66.6%) were on adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy. Of these, 9 (64.3%) continued with the same regimen with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF), and 5 (35.7%), who were receiving weekly paclitaxel, continued the treatment with no changes. The remaining 7 of 21 patients (33.3%) were on palliative CT. Of these, 2 (28.5%) continued the treatment with the addition of G-CSF, 3 (42.8%) continued with weekly capecitabine or paclitaxel with no treatment changes, and 2 (28.5%) changed their treatment regimen (a less myelosuppressive regimen was selected for one of them and this decision was due to the progression of the disease in the other patient). The 90 patients who were receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative criteria HT and/or anti-HER2 therapies, continued the treatment with no changes Conclusions: Although these are preliminary results, the available evidence suggests that, although medical appointments decreased by approximately 17%, the UDAM was able to maintain its healthcare activities and continued most of the treatments. The most modified treatment was CT, with the addition of prophylactic G-CSF, to avoid myelosuppression and potential complications from COVID-19 infection.

Initial results from a phase 1b study of ORIC-101, a glucocorticoid receptor antagonist, in combination with nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

2553 Background: ORIC-101 is a potent and selective, orally bioavailable, small molecule antagonist of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). Preclinical studies have demonstrated that activation of GR signaling leads to decreased responsiveness to chemotherapeutics (eg, taxanes) and antiandrogens across multiple tumor types. Mechanistically, ORIC-101 inhibits GR transcriptional activity and blocks the prosurvival signals mediated by the activated nuclear hormone receptor. Methods: A 3+3 dose escalation design was used to assess safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and select the Recommended Phase 2 Dose (RP2D) of ORIC-101 in combination with nab-paclitaxel (nab-pac; NCT03928314). ORIC-101 doses ranging from 80 to 240 mg once daily, given either intermittently or in a continuous dosing regimen, were evaluated in combination with weekly nab-pac at 75 or 100 mg/m2. Plasma PK and PD biomarkers were assessed on day 1 and after repeat dosing. PD modulation in blood-derived peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was assessed by RT-qPCR for GR target genes. Antitumor activity was assessed by RECIST v1.1. Results: 21 patients with 10 different solid tumors, with and without a prior taxane, were treated in 5 cohorts. ORIC-101 exposure increased with dose, with no evidence for drug-drug interaction with nab-pac. In the initial cohort at 240 mg ORIC-101 and 100 mg/m2 nab-pac, 2 patients experienced dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) of Grade 3 fatigue and Grade 4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia, respectively. No further DLTs were observed in subsequent cohorts and the RP2D was established as 160 mg ORIC-101 dosed once daily continuously for 21 days with nab-pac 75 mg/m2 given on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle, without requirement for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The most common (&gt; 15%), all grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were nausea (38%), diarrhea (33%), fatigue (29%), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (29%), anemia (24%), and 19% of patients had increased liver function tests and alopecia. Biomarker data demonstrated ORIC-101-induced reduction in GR target gene expression in PBMCs, indicating PD modulation at all dose levels of ORIC-101. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed in 3 taxane-refractory patients with breast, endometrial, and pancreatic cancers. Conclusions: The combination of ORIC-101 and nab-paclitaxel demonstrated an acceptable tolerability profile and does not require prophylactic G-CSF. PK and PD showed no evidence of drug-drug-interaction and demonstrated GR target inhibition. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed in patients with solid tumors that previously progressed on a taxane-containing regimen. Dose expansion is ongoing at the RP2D in dedicated pancreatic, ovarian, triple negative breast cancers, and tissue-agnostic cohorts. Clinical trial information: NCT03928314.

Modified TPEx as First-line Treatment for Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer.

To retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of modified TPEx (docetaxel 60 mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1, and weekly cetuximab 250 mg/m2 with loading dose of 400 mg/m2) followed by maintenance cetuximab as first-line treatment for inoperable recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. We analyzed 22 Japanese patients receiving modified TPEx every 21 days for four cycles with or without prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The best overall response rate was 55% [95% confidence interval (CI)=35-73]. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 8.9 months (95%CI=3.9-10.2) and 14.3 months (95%CI=10.1-28.2), respectively. Without prophylactic G-CSF, Grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was common (94% versus 20%; p=0.003 and 41% versus 0%; p=0.11, respectively). The modified TPEx is effective, while prophylactic G-CSF is essential.

BBCIC Research Network Analysis of First-Cycle Prophylactic G-CSF Use in Patients Treated With High-Neutropenia Risk Chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is prevented or minimized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Several G-CSF biosimilars are approved in the United States. The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) is a nonprofit initiative whose objective is to provide scientific evidence on real-world use and comparative safety and effectiveness of biologics and biosimilars using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN). We describe real-world G-CSF use in patients with breast or lung cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy associated with high FN risk. We assessed hospitalizations for FN, availability of absolute neutrophil counts, and G-CSF-induced adverse events to inform future observational comparative effectiveness studies of G-CSF reference products and their biosimilars. A descriptive analysis of 5 participating national health insurance plans was conducted within the BBCIC DRN. A total of 57,725 patients who received at least one G-CSF dose were included. Most (92.5%) patients received pegfilgrastim. FN hospitalization rates were evaluated by narrow (<0.5%), intermediate (1.91%), and broad (2.99%) definitions. Anaphylaxis and hyperleukocytosis were identified in 1.15% and 2.28% of patients, respectively. This analysis provides real-world evidence extracted from a large, readily available database of diverse patients, characterizing G-CSF reference product use to inform the feasibility of future observational comparative safety and effectiveness analyses of G-CSF biosimilars. We showed that the rates of FN and adverse events in our research network are consistent with those reported by previous small studies. Readily available BBCIC DRN data can be used to assess G-CSF use with the incidence of FN hospitalizations. Insufficient laboratory result data were available to report absolute neutrophil counts; however, other safety data are available for assessment that provide valuable baseline data regarding the effectiveness and safety of G-CSFs in preparation for comparative effectiveness studies of reference G-CSFs and their biosimilars.