Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-01-2018 | Review Article

Clinical equivalence with G-CSF biosimilars: methodologic approach in a (neo)adjuvant setting in non-metastatic breast cancer

Authors: A. Krendyukov, M. Schiestl, N. Höbel, M. Aapro

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Biosimilars are biological medicines that have been shown to be similar to a reference biological medicine that has already been approved for use. Development of biosimilars is based on a “totality of evidence” approach that involves a series of steps by which biosimilars must demonstrate similarity to a reference product in all aspects of the drug and eliminate any remaining uncertainties. Clinical studies are then considered confirmatory and are performed to show that there are no clinically meaningful differences compared with the reference product in a sensitive patient population. The recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar EP2006/Zarxio® (filgrastim-sdnz) became the first FDA-approved biosimilar in 2015. This review evaluates how clinical equivalence can be demonstrated with G-CSF biosimilars through the identification of “sensitive” study populations and endpoints. Patients with non-metastatic breast cancer treated in the (neo)adjuvant setting represent a potentially homogenous population, making this a suitable sensitive indication for assessing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars compared with reference products. This review includes clinical trials of G-CSF biosimilars in breast cancer, focusing on key aspects of the trials that were necessary to accurately demonstrate clinical equivalence and enable extrapolation to relevant indications, based on guidelines and biostatistical principles.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Weise M, Kurki P, Wolff-Holz E et al (2014) Biosimilars: the science of extrapolation. Blood 124(22):3191–3196CrossRef Weise M, Kurki P, Wolff-Holz E et al (2014) Biosimilars: the science of extrapolation. Blood 124(22):3191–3196CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Holzmann J, Balser S, Windisch J (2016) Totality of the evidence at work: the first U.S. biosimilar. Expert Opin Biol Ther 16(2):137–142CrossRef Holzmann J, Balser S, Windisch J (2016) Totality of the evidence at work: the first U.S. biosimilar. Expert Opin Biol Ther 16(2):137–142CrossRef
7.
go back to reference FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting. ZARXIO® (filgrastim). January 7, 2015 FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting. ZARXIO® (filgrastim). January 7, 2015
17.
go back to reference Sörgel F, Schwebig A, Holzmann J et al (2015) Comparability of biosimilar filgrastim with originator filgrastim: protein characterization, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics. BioDrugs 29(2):123–131CrossRef Sörgel F, Schwebig A, Holzmann J et al (2015) Comparability of biosimilar filgrastim with originator filgrastim: protein characterization, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics. BioDrugs 29(2):123–131CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Blackwell K, Semiglazov V, Krasnozhon D et al (2015) Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, to the reference: a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 26(9):1948–1953CrossRef Blackwell K, Semiglazov V, Krasnozhon D et al (2015) Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, to the reference: a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 26(9):1948–1953CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Jackisch C, Scappaticci FA, Heinzmann D et al (2015) Neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment as a sensitive setting for trastuzumab biosimilar development and extrapolation. Future Oncol 11(1):61–71CrossRef Jackisch C, Scappaticci FA, Heinzmann D et al (2015) Neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment as a sensitive setting for trastuzumab biosimilar development and extrapolation. Future Oncol 11(1):61–71CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Socinski MA, Curigliano G, Jacobs I et al (2015) Clinical considerations for the development of biosimilars in oncology. MAbs 7(2):286–293CrossRef Socinski MA, Curigliano G, Jacobs I et al (2015) Clinical considerations for the development of biosimilars in oncology. MAbs 7(2):286–293CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Cortés J, Curigliano G, Diéras V (2014) Expert perspectives on biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(2):233–239CrossRef Cortés J, Curigliano G, Diéras V (2014) Expert perspectives on biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(2):233–239CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al (2015) Primary breast cancer: ESCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals Oncol 26(Suppl. 5):v8–v30CrossRef Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al (2015) Primary breast cancer: ESCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals Oncol 26(Suppl. 5):v8–v30CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 352(22):2302–2313CrossRef Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 352(22):2302–2313CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Nabholtz JM, Mackey JR, Smylie M et al (2001) Phase II study of docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:314–321CrossRef Nabholtz JM, Mackey JR, Smylie M et al (2001) Phase II study of docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:314–321CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Martín M, Lluch A, Seguí MA et al (2006) Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen. Ann Oncol 17(8):1205–1212CrossRef Martín M, Lluch A, Seguí MA et al (2006) Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen. Ann Oncol 17(8):1205–1212CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH et al (2006) 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 24(19):3187–3205CrossRef Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH et al (2006) 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 24(19):3187–3205CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Aapro M et al (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 Clin Oncol 47:8–32CrossRef Aapro M et al (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 Clin Oncol 47:8–32CrossRef
28.
go back to reference National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2016. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Myeloid growth factors. Version 1.2016 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2016. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Myeloid growth factors. Version 1.2016
29.
go back to reference Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH et al (2015) Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 33:3199–3212CrossRef Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH et al (2015) Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 33:3199–3212CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Burris HA, Belani CP, Kaufman PA et al (2010) Pegfilgrastim on the same day versus next day of chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of four multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase II studies. J Oncol Pract 6(3):133–140CrossRef Burris HA, Belani CP, Kaufman PA et al (2010) Pegfilgrastim on the same day versus next day of chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of four multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase II studies. J Oncol Pract 6(3):133–140CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Bodey GP (1984) Antibiotics in patients with neutropenia. Arch Intern Med 144(9):1845–1851CrossRef Bodey GP (1984) Antibiotics in patients with neutropenia. Arch Intern Med 144(9):1845–1851CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Walker E, Nowacki AS (2011) Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. J Gen Intern Med 26(2):192–196CrossRef Walker E, Nowacki AS (2011) Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. J Gen Intern Med 26(2):192–196CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, Chapman & Hall/CRC, London. ISBN 9780412276309 Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, Chapman & Hall/CRC, London. ISBN 9780412276309
34.
go back to reference Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J et al (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(1):29–35CrossRef Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J et al (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(1):29–35CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S et al (2002a) 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(3):727–731CrossRef Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S et al (2002a) 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(3):727–731CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Holmes FA, Jones SE, O'Shaughnessy J et al (2002b) Comparable efficacy and safety profiles of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily injection filgrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a multicenter dose-finding study in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 13(6):903–909CrossRef Holmes FA, Jones SE, O'Shaughnessy J et al (2002b) Comparable efficacy and safety profiles of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily injection filgrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a multicenter dose-finding study in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 13(6):903–909CrossRef
37.
go back to reference del Giglio A, Eniu A, Ganea-Motan D et al (2008) XM02 is superior to placebo and equivalent to Neupogen in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in cycle 1 in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 8:332CrossRef del Giglio A, Eniu A, Ganea-Motan D et al (2008) XM02 is superior to placebo and equivalent to Neupogen in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in cycle 1 in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 8:332CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Waller CF, Semiglazov VF, Tjulandin S et al (2010) A phase III randomized equivalence study of biosimilar filgrastim versus Amgen filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for breast cancer. Onkologie 33(10):504–511PubMed Waller CF, Semiglazov VF, Tjulandin S et al (2010) A phase III randomized equivalence study of biosimilar filgrastim versus Amgen filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for breast cancer. Onkologie 33(10):504–511PubMed
39.
go back to reference Buchner A, Elsässer R, Bias P (2014) A randomized, double-blind, active control, multicenter, dose-finding study of lipegfilgrastim (XM22) in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148(1):107–116CrossRef Buchner A, Elsässer R, Bias P (2014) A randomized, double-blind, active control, multicenter, dose-finding study of lipegfilgrastim (XM22) in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148(1):107–116CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Blackwell K, Donskih R, Jones CM et al (2016) A comparison of proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim for the prevention of neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Oncologist 21(7):789–794CrossRef Blackwell K, Donskih R, Jones CM et al (2016) A comparison of proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim for the prevention of neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Oncologist 21(7):789–794CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Harbeck N, Lipatov O, Frolova M et al (2016) Randomized, double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Future Oncol 12(11):1359–1367CrossRef Harbeck N, Lipatov O, Frolova M et al (2016) Randomized, double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Future Oncol 12(11):1359–1367CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Hegg R, Mattar A, Matos-Neto JN et al (2016) A phase III, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim versus originator filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 71(10):586–592CrossRef Hegg R, Mattar A, Matos-Neto JN et al (2016) A phase III, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim versus originator filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 71(10):586–592CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Waller CF, Blakeley C, Pennella E et al (2016) Phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H vs EU-Neulasta® in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Ann Oncol 27(suppl_6):1433O Waller CF, Blakeley C, Pennella E et al (2016) Phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H vs EU-Neulasta® in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Ann Oncol 27(suppl_6):1433O
Metadata
Title
Clinical equivalence with G-CSF biosimilars: methodologic approach in a (neo)adjuvant setting in non-metastatic breast cancer
Authors
A. Krendyukov
M. Schiestl
N. Höbel
M. Aapro
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3861-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2018 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