Lipegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in Dutch patients.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy (CT)-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) can lead to changes in the treatment plan, potentially worsening the cancer outcome. This study evaluated the effect of the glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor lipegfilgrastim, used as primary (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP), on treatment modifications in adult patients receiving cytotoxic CT with or without biological/targeted therapy (BT) for solid and haematological tumours. METHODS: This phase 4, prospective, observational study was conducted in eight centres in the Netherlands, in 2015-2017. Other study objectives were to characterise the population of cancer patients receiving lipegfilgrastim, to evaluate the incidence of CT-induced neutropenic events, and to assess safety. RESULTS: Of 142 patients, 73.94% had breast cancer and 55.63% received CT in the adjuvant setting. Most patients received lipegfilgrastim as PP (74.65%) and were at low (34.51%) or high risk (39.44%) of FN. CT dose delays were recorded for 22.64% and 36.11% of patients receiving lipegfilgrastim for PP and SP, respectively. CT dose reductions were recorded for 2.11% of patients; no CT dose omissions and one BT dose omission occurred. FN and grade III/IV neutropenia were reported for 5.63% and 9.86% of patients, respectively; associated hospitalisations were rare. The most frequently lipegfilgrastimrelated adverse events (AE) were myalgia, bone pain, and back pain. Serious AEs (55) were reported for 30 (21.13%) patients. There were two deaths, unrelated to lipegfilgrastim administration. CONCLUSION: Administration of lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice in the Netherlands results in limited CT/BT dose modifications and low incidence of neutropenic events, with no new safety concerns.

Willingness to accept chemotherapy and attitudes towards costs of cancer treatment; A multisite survey study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In the past years, interest in patient treatment preferences is growing. Our objectives were: (1) to assess and compare the minimal required benefit for patients with cancer, patients without cancer and healthcare professionals to make chemotherapy acceptable and (2) to obtain insight into attitudes towards societal costs of cancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective survey consisting of hypothetical scenarios among patients with cancer, patients without cancer and healthcare professionals. Participants were asked to indicate the minimal desired benefit in terms of chance of cure, life prolongation and symptom relief which would make intensive and mild chemotherapy regimens acceptable. In two other scenarios, attitudes towards monthly costs for chemotherapy treatment were examined. RESULTS: The minimal benefit required to make chemotherapy acceptable did not differ between cancer and non-cancer patients, with respect to chance of cure (mean 57%), life prolongation (median 24 months) and symptom relief (mean 50%); healthcare providers were likely to accept the same chemotherapy regimen at lower thresholds (p < 0.01). Education level was an important explanatory variable and the differences between patients and healthcare professionals disappeared when corrected for education level. Opinions about the maximum acceptable costs for chemotherapy displayed a large spread between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal benefits to accept chemotherapy were not different between cancer and non-cancer patients, but are beyond what can generally can be achieved. Healthcare professionals were willing to accept chemotherapy for less benefit. This difference may be attributed to a difference in education level between the groups. Healthcare professionals rated the maximum acceptable societal cost for chemotherapy lower than patients.

A new, simple and objective prognostic score for phase I cancer patients.

AIM: To ensure safety and optimise efficacy, careful patient selection for participation in oncologic phase I trials is warranted. Therefore, we did a validation study on existing phase I prognostic scores, and subsequently aimed to make an even more simple prognostic score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed characteristics and clinical outcome of 122 patients who participated in eight different phase I studies in our centre. A literature search was performed for existing prognostic scores which were validated in our dataset. Additionally, a simple prognostic score able to predict overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), 90-d mortality and duration of participation was developed. RESULTS: In our population the median OS was 31 (range 4-241) weeks, median PFS was 10 (range 3-119) weeks. Thirteen patients (11%) died within 90-d and median participation duration was 11 (range 1-119) weeks. Two out of five existing prognostic scores could be validated in this dataset for OS. Based on multivariate analyses a new, objective and simple score, consisting of LDH, sodium and haemoglobin, was tested. High score (2-3 points) compared to low score (0-1) significantly predicted OS (HR 1.878, p = 0.003), PFS (HR 1.156, p = 0.038), participation duration (HR 1.858, p = 0.004) and 90-d mortality (OR 4.200, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: We propose a new prognostic model, using LDH, sodium and haemoglobin, helpful to predict OS, PFS, participation duration and 90-d mortality. Larger multicentre studies are needed to validate this score.

A phase I dose-escalation study to evaluate safety and tolerability of sorafenib combined with sirolimus in patients with advanced solid cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor) and sirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) might work synergistically. METHODS: A phase I dose-escalation study with sorafenib twice a day (b.i.d.) and sirolimus once daily (q.d.) was performed to determine the recommended dose of the combination in patients with solid tumours. Secondary objectives were to determine the safety profile and maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the combination. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities were transaminitis and cutaneous toxicity. The most frequently reported adverse events were elevated transaminases, hypophosphatemia, fatigue, anorexia, diarrhoea, nausea, rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia. Sirolimus did not change the PK of sorafenib; in contrast, sorafenib reduced the AUC(0-96) and C(max) of sirolimus. No objective responses were observed; eight patients showed stable disease for a median of 16.3 weeks (range 8-24). The MTD of the combination was sorafenib 200 mg b.i.d. with sirolimus 1 mg q.d. CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib and sirolimus showed enhanced toxicity, which could not be explained by the PK of both drugs. The relative low doses at the MTD, in combination with the PK results, do not warrant further development of this combination.

A Phase Ib dose-escalation study to evaluate safety and tolerability of the addition of the aminopeptidase inhibitor tosedostat (CHR-2797) to paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This Phase Ib dose-escalating study investigated safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical antitumour activity of tosedostat (CHR-2797), an orally bioavailable aminopeptidase inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel. METHODS: A total of 22 patients received paclitaxel (135-175 mg m(-2)) intravenously, administered once every three weeks for up to six cycles, with oral tosedostat (90-240 mg) daily. RESULTS: One DLT (grade 3 dyspnoea) was observed in one patient with tosedostat 180 mg combined with paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2). A high number of paclitaxel infusion reactions was noted during the second administration (59%) and this prompted interruption of tosedostat dosing for 5 days around every second and subsequent paclitaxel infusion. No formal MTD was determined because of the high frequency of paclitaxel infusion reactions that may have been influenced by tosedostat. Most frequently observed drug-related adverse events were alopecia, fatigue (95% each), peripheral sensory neuropathy (59%), paclitaxel hypersensitivity (59%) and rash (55%). One patient died because of eosinophilic myocarditis, possibly related to study medication. There was no PK interaction between tosedostat and paclitaxel. In all, 3 patients had a partial response and 12 patients had stable disease lasting >3 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of tosedostat with paclitaxel was well tolerated except for the high incidence of paclitaxel-related infusion reactions.

Phase Ib study of NGR-hTNF, a selective vascular targeting agent, administered at low doses in combination with doxorubicin to patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Asparagine-glycine-arginine-human tumour necrosis factor (NGR-hTNF) is a vascular targeting agent exploiting a tumour-homing peptide (NGR) that selectively binds to aminopeptidase N/CD13, overexpressed on tumour blood vessels. Significant preclinical synergy was shown between low doses of NGR-TNF and doxorubicin. METHODS: The primary aim of this phase I trial was to verify the safety of low-dose NGR-hTNF combined with doxorubicin in treating refractory/resistant solid tumours. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. In all 15 patients received NGR-hTNF (0.2-0.4-0.8-1.6 microg m(-2)) and doxorubicin (60-75 mg m(-2)), both given intravenously every 3 weeks. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicity occurred and the combination was well tolerated. Around two cases of neutropenic fevers, lasting 2 days, and two cases of cardiac ejection-fraction drops, one asymptomatic and the other symptomatic, were registered. Only 11% of the adverse events were related to NGR-hTNF and were short-lasting and mild-to-moderate in severity. There was no apparent PK interaction and the shedding of soluble TNF-receptors did not increase to 0.8 microg m(-2). One partial response (7%), at dose level 0.8 microg m(-2), and 10 stable diseases (66%), lasting for a median duration of 5.6 months, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: NGR-hTNF plus doxorubicin was administered safely and showed promising activity in patients pre-treated with anthracyclines. The dose level of 0.8 microg m(-2) NGR-hTNF plus doxorubicin 75 mg m(-2) was selected for phase II development.

Prophylactic G-CSF and antibiotics enable a significant dose-escalation of triplet-chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.

In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) the clinical benefit of a platinum-based doublet is only modest, therefore, attenuated dosed three-drug combinations are investigated. We hypothesized that with adequate support a full dosed chemotherapy triplet is feasible. The study was designed as a dose finding study of paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naive patients. Paclitaxel was given as a 3-h infusion on day 1, followed by fixed doses of teniposide (or etoposide) 100mg/m(2) days 1, 3, 5 and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) day 1 every 3 weeks. As myelotoxicity was expected to be the dose-limiting toxicity, prophylactic G-CSF and antibiotic support was evaluated. Indeed, paclitaxel 120 mg/m(2) resulted in dose-limiting neutropenia, despite G-CSF support. Teniposide/etoposide day 1, 3, 5 was less myelotoxic compared to day 1, 2, 3. G-CSF support allowed paclitaxel dose-escalation to 250 mg/m(2). The addition of prophylactic antibiotics enabled dose-escalation to 275 mg/m(2) without reaching MTD. In conclusion, G-CSF and antibiotics prophylaxis enables the delivery of a full dosed chemotherapy triplet in previously untreated NSCLC patients.

Timely withdrawal of G-CSF reduces the occurrence of thrombocytopenia during dose-dense chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Post chemotherapy Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces leucopenia, while G-CSF priming shortly before chemotherapy increases myelotoxicity. We performed a trial with a two-schedule crossover design to determine the optimal G-CSF schedule for densified 2-weekly chemotherapy. METHODS: During 2-weekly chemotherapy days 1 and 2, G-CSF was given on days 3-10, with a G-CSF-free interval before the next chemotherapy cycle of 5 days, or on days 3-13, with a G-CSF-free interval of 2 days. In schedule A, cycle II was preceded by a 5 days, cycle III and IV by a 2 days and cycle V by a 5 days G-CSF free interval. In schedule B, this was 2, 5, 5, and 2 days, respectively. RESULTS: Intra-patient comparison for cycles II versus III and cycles IV versus V showed that platelet (PLT) nadir count was significantly lower for cycles preceded by a 2-days compared to a 5-days G-CSF free interval: mean difference 45.7 x 10(9)/l (95% CI 33.2-58.2, p = 0.0001). Neutrophil count did not differ significantly (p = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Timely withdrawal of G-CSF in dose-dense chemotherapy reduces chemotherapy-related thrombocytopenia. Leucopenia was not aggravated, reflecting a protective effect of post-chemotherapy G-CSF.