Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2018

01-04-2018 | Clinical trial

Advantages with prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy: an open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study

Authors: Jie Xie, Jun Cao, Jing-fen Wang, Bai-hong Zhang, Xiao-hua Zeng, Hong Zheng, Yang Zhang, Li Cai, Yu-dong Wu, Qiang Yao, Xiao-chun Zhao, Wei-dong Mao, Ai-Mei Jiang, Shao-shui Chen, Shun-e Yang, Shu-sen Wang, Jian-hong Wang, Yue-yin Pan, Bi-yong Ren, Yan-ju Chen, Li-zhi Ouyang, Kai-jian Lei, Jing-hua Gao, Wen-he Huang, Zhan Huang, Tao Shou, Yan-ling He, Jing Cheng, Yang Sun, Wei-ming Li, Shu-de Cui, Xin Wang, Zhi-guo Rao, Hu Ma, Wei Liu, Xue-yong Wu, Wei-xi Shen, Fei-lin Cao, Ze-min Xiao, Biao Wu, Shu-yan Tian, Dong Meng, Peng Shen, Bi-yun Wang, Zhonghua Wang, Jian Zhang, Leiping Wang, Xi-chun Hu

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

PEG-rhG-CSF reduces neutropenia and improves chemotherapy safety. In China’s registration trial (CFDA: 2006L01305), we assessed its efficacy and safety against rhG-CSF, and prospectively explored its value over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Methods

In this open-label, randomized, multicenter phase 3 study, breast cancer patients (n = 569) were randomized to receive PEG-rhG-CSF 100 µg/kg, PEG-rhG-CSF 6 mg, or rhG-CSF 5 µg/kg/d after chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were the incidence and duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia during cycle 1. Secondary endpoints included the incidence and duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia during cycles 2–4, the incidence of febrile neutropenia, and the safety.

Results

A once-per-cycle PEG-rhG-CSF at either 100 µg/kg or 6 mg was not different from daily injections of rhG-CSF for either incidence or duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia. Interestingly, a substantial difference was noted during cycle 2, and the difference became bigger over cycles 3–4, reaching a statistical significance at cycle 4 in either incidence (P = 0.0309) or duration (P = 0.0289) favoring PEG-rhG-CSF. A significant trend toward a lower incidence of all-grade adverse events was noted at 129 (68.98%), 142 (75.53%), and 160 (82.47%) in the PEG-rhG-CSF 100 µg/kg and 6 mg and rhG-CSF groups, respectively (P = 0.0085). The corresponding incidence of grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events was 2/187 (1.07%), 1/188 (0.53%), and 8/194 (4.12%), respectively (P = 0.0477). Additionally, PFS in metastatic patients preferred PEG-rhG-CSF to rhG-CSF despite no significance observed by Kaplan–Meier analysis (n = 49, P = 0.153).

Conclusions

PEG-rhG-CSF is a more convenient and safe formulation and a more effective prophylactic measure in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Welte K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud MH, Platzer E, Morstyn G (1996) Filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF): the first 10 years. Blood 88:1907–1929PubMed Welte K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud MH, Platzer E, Morstyn G (1996) Filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF): the first 10 years. Blood 88:1907–1929PubMed
3.
go back to reference Gabrilove JL, Jakubowski A, Scher H, Sternberg C, Wong G, Grous J, Yagoda A, Fain K, Moore MA, Clarkson B et al (1988) Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutropenia and associated morbidity due to chemotherapy for transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelium. N Engl J Med 318:1414–1422. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198806023182202 CrossRefPubMed Gabrilove JL, Jakubowski A, Scher H, Sternberg C, Wong G, Grous J, Yagoda A, Fain K, Moore MA, Clarkson B et al (1988) Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutropenia and associated morbidity due to chemotherapy for transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelium. N Engl J Med 318:1414–1422. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1056/​NEJM198806023182​202 CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Sheridan WP, Morstyn G, Wolf M, Dodds A, Lusk J, Maher D, Layton JE, Green MD, Souza L, Fox RM (1989) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and neutrophil recovery after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. Lancet 2:891–895CrossRefPubMed Sheridan WP, Morstyn G, Wolf M, Dodds A, Lusk J, Maher D, Layton JE, Green MD, Souza L, Fox RM (1989) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and neutrophil recovery after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. Lancet 2:891–895CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, Dal Lago L, Donnelly JP, Kearney N, Lyman GH, Pettengell R, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Walewski J, Weber DC, Zielinski C, European Organisation for R, Treatment of C (2011) 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 47:8–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013 CrossRefPubMed Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, Dal Lago L, Donnelly JP, Kearney N, Lyman GH, Pettengell R, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Walewski J, Weber DC, Zielinski C, European Organisation for R, Treatment of C (2011) 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 47:8–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​ejca.​2010.​10.​013 CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Crawford J, Rodgers GM (2014) Treatment strategies for myeloid growth factors and intravenous iron: when, what, and how? J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12:821–824CrossRefPubMed Crawford J, Rodgers GM (2014) Treatment strategies for myeloid growth factors and intravenous iron: when, what, and how? J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12:821–824CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, Ozer H, Armitage JO, Balducci L, Bennett CL, Cantor SB, Crawford J, Cross SJ, Demetri G, Desch CE, Pizzo PA, Schiffer CA, Schwartzberg L, Somerfield MR, Somlo G, Wade JC, Wade JL, Winn RJ, Wozniak AJ, Wolff AC (2006) 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J clin oncol 24:3187–3205. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4451 CrossRefPubMed Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, Ozer H, Armitage JO, Balducci L, Bennett CL, Cantor SB, Crawford J, Cross SJ, Demetri G, Desch CE, Pizzo PA, Schiffer CA, Schwartzberg L, Somerfield MR, Somlo G, Wade JC, Wade JL, Winn RJ, Wozniak AJ, Wolff AC (2006) 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J clin oncol 24:3187–3205. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1200/​JCO.​2006.​06.​4451 CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, Ozer H, Armitage JO, Balducci L, Bennett CL, Cantor SB, Crawford J, Cross SJ, Demetri G, Desch CE, Pizzo PA, Schiffer CA, Schwartzberg L, Somerfield MR, Somlo G, Wade JC, Wade JL, Winn RJ, Wozniak AJ, Wolff AC (2006) 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J clin oncol 24:3187–3205. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4451 CrossRefPubMed Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, Ozer H, Armitage JO, Balducci L, Bennett CL, Cantor SB, Crawford J, Cross SJ, Demetri G, Desch CE, Pizzo PA, Schiffer CA, Schwartzberg L, Somerfield MR, Somlo G, Wade JC, Wade JL, Winn RJ, Wozniak AJ, Wolff AC (2006) 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J clin oncol 24:3187–3205. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1200/​JCO.​2006.​06.​4451 CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Myeloid Growth Factors: version 2. 2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Myeloid Growth Factors: version 2. 2014
14.
go back to reference Aapro M, Boccia R, Leonard R, Camps C, Campone M, Choquet S, Danova M, Glaspy J, Hus I, Link H, Sliwa T, Tesch H, Valero V (2017) Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations. Support Care Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3842-1 Aapro M, Boccia R, Leonard R, Camps C, Campone M, Choquet S, Danova M, Glaspy J, Hus I, Link H, Sliwa T, Tesch H, Valero V (2017) Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations. Support Care Cancer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00520-017-3842-1
16.
go back to reference Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, Jones SE, Shogan J, Savin M, Glaspy J, Moore M, Meza L, Wiznitzer I, Neumann TA, Hill LR, Liang BC (2002) Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J clin oncol 20:727–731. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.3.727 CrossRefPubMed Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, Jones SE, Shogan J, Savin M, Glaspy J, Moore M, Meza L, Wiznitzer I, Neumann TA, Hill LR, Liang BC (2002) Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J clin oncol 20:727–731. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1200/​JCO.​2002.​20.​3.​727 CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, Jones SE, Shogan J, Savin M, Glaspy J, Moore M, Meza L, Wiznitzer I, Neumann TA, Hill LR, Liang BC (2002) Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J clin oncol 20:727–731. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.3.727 CrossRefPubMed Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, Jones SE, Shogan J, Savin M, Glaspy J, Moore M, Meza L, Wiznitzer I, Neumann TA, Hill LR, Liang BC (2002) Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J clin oncol 20:727–731. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1200/​JCO.​2002.​20.​3.​727 CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J, Galid A, Guillem V, Gascon P, Siena S, Lalisang RI, Samonigg H, Clemens MR, Zani V, Liang BC, Renwick J, Piccart MJ, International Pegfilgrastim 749 Study G (2003) A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14:29–35CrossRef Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J, Galid A, Guillem V, Gascon P, Siena S, Lalisang RI, Samonigg H, Clemens MR, Zani V, Liang BC, Renwick J, Piccart MJ, International Pegfilgrastim 749 Study G (2003) A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14:29–35CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Advantages with prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy: an open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study
Authors
Jie Xie
Jun Cao
Jing-fen Wang
Bai-hong Zhang
Xiao-hua Zeng
Hong Zheng
Yang Zhang
Li Cai
Yu-dong Wu
Qiang Yao
Xiao-chun Zhao
Wei-dong Mao
Ai-Mei Jiang
Shao-shui Chen
Shun-e Yang
Shu-sen Wang
Jian-hong Wang
Yue-yin Pan
Bi-yong Ren
Yan-ju Chen
Li-zhi Ouyang
Kai-jian Lei
Jing-hua Gao
Wen-he Huang
Zhan Huang
Tao Shou
Yan-ling He
Jing Cheng
Yang Sun
Wei-ming Li
Shu-de Cui
Xin Wang
Zhi-guo Rao
Hu Ma
Wei Liu
Xue-yong Wu
Wei-xi Shen
Fei-lin Cao
Ze-min Xiao
Biao Wu
Shu-yan Tian
Dong Meng
Peng Shen
Bi-yun Wang
Zhonghua Wang
Jian Zhang
Leiping Wang
Xi-chun Hu
Publication date
01-04-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4609-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine