PURPOSE: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Noninferiority of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was demonstrated in a phase III trial in chemotherapy (CTx)-naïve breast cancer patients. Secondary outcomes relating to treatment burden are reported here. METHODS:Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) subcutaneously on day 2 of each CTx cycle. Doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) commenced on day 1, for up to four cycles. Secondary end points included days in the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU), use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia (FN) or related infections, and measures of CTx delivery (dose delays, reductions, and omissions). RESULTS: One lipegfilgrastim recipient and two pegfilgrastim recipients were hospitalized in cycle 1 because of FN or associated infection. The lipegfilgrastim-treated patient spent 1 day in the ICU for FN, and the two pegfilgrastim-treated patients were hospitalized for FN for 5 and 6 days, respectively. All hospitalized patients received antibiotics. An additional pegfilgrastim-treated patient received antibiotics but was not hospitalized. Most patients received CTx as scheduled; over 98% received their planned doxorubicin and docetaxel doses in all cycles. In the lipegfilgrastim group, no patients had a CTx dose reduced or omitted; eight patients in the pegfilgrastim group had a CTx dose reduced or omitted during cycles 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of treatment associated with myelosuppressive CTx was similar in breast cancer patients treated withlipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Noninferiority of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was demonstrated in a phase III trial in chemotherapy (CTx)-naïve breast cancerpatients. Secondary outcomes relating to treatment burden are reported here. METHODS:Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) subcutaneously on day 2 of each CTx cycle. Doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) commenced on day 1, for up to four cycles. Secondary end points included days in the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU), use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia (FN) or related infections, and measures of CTx delivery (dose delays, reductions, and omissions). RESULTS: One lipegfilgrastim recipient and two pegfilgrastim recipients were hospitalized in cycle 1 because of FN or associated infection. The lipegfilgrastim-treated patient spent 1 day in the ICU for FN, and the two pegfilgrastim-treated patients were hospitalized for FN for 5 and 6 days, respectively. All hospitalized patients received antibiotics. An additional pegfilgrastim-treated patient received antibiotics but was not hospitalized. Most patients received CTx as scheduled; over 98% received their planned doxorubicin and docetaxel doses in all cycles. In the lipegfilgrastim group, no patients had a CTx dose reduced or omitted; eight patients in the pegfilgrastim group had a CTx dose reduced or omitted during cycles 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of treatment associated with myelosuppressive CTx was similar in breast cancerpatients treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antibiotics; Breast neoplasms; Febrile neutropenia; Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; Hospitalization
Authors: Thomas J Smith; James Khatcheressian; Gary H Lyman; Howard Ozer; James O Armitage; Lodovico Balducci; Charles L Bennett; Scott B Cantor; Jeffrey Crawford; Scott J Cross; George Demetri; Christopher E Desch; Philip A Pizzo; Charles A Schiffer; Lee Schwartzberg; Mark R Somerfield; George Somlo; James C Wade; James L Wade; Rodger J Winn; Antoinette J Wozniak; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles L Vogel; Marek Z Wojtukiewicz; Robert R Carroll; Sergei A Tjulandin; Luis Javier Barajas-Figueroa; Brian L Wiens; Theresa A Neumann; Lee S Schwartzberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F A Holmes; J A O'Shaughnessy; S Vukelja; S E Jones; J Shogan; M Savin; J Glaspy; M Moore; L Meza; I Wiznitzer; T A Neumann; L R Hill; B C Liang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G von Minckwitz; M Schwenkglenks; T Skacel; G H Lyman; A Lopez Pousa; P Bacon; V Easton; M S Aapro Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: G von Minckwitz; S Kümmel; A du Bois; W Eiermann; H Eidtmann; B Gerber; J Hilfrich; J Huober; S D Costa; C Jackisch; S-T Grasshoff; S Vescia; T Skacel; S Loibl; K M Mehta; M Kaufmann Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-09-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Philip Riley; Anne-Marie Glenny; Helen V Worthington; Anne Littlewood; Luisa M Fernandez Mauleffinch; Jan E Clarkson; Martin G McCabe Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-11-28
Authors: Hartmut Link; Stephen F Thompson; Marc Tian; Jennifer S Haas; Dominic Meise; Christopher Maas; Stamen Dimitrov Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Roberto Guariglia; Maria Carmen Martorelli; Rosa Lerose; Donatella Telesca; Maria Rita Milella; Pellegrino Musto Journal: Biologics Date: 2016-01-22