myelosuppressive chemotherapy
Recently Published Documents

AbstractPlatelets play critical roles in hemostasis and thrombosis. While low platelet counts increase the risk of bleeding, antithrombotic drugs, including anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, are used to treat thromboembolic events. Thus, the management of thrombosis in patients with low platelet counts is challenging with hardly any evidence available to guide treatment. Recognition of the underlying cause of thrombocytopenia is essential for assessing the bleeding risk and tailoring therapeutic options. A typical clinical scenario is the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients experiencing transient thrombocytopenia during myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In such patients, the severity of thrombocytopenia, thrombus burden, clinical symptoms, and the timing of VTE relative to thrombocytopenia must be considered. In clinical practice, distinct hematological disorders characterized by low platelet counts and a thrombogenic state require specific diagnostics and treatment. These include the antiphospholipid syndrome, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and (spontaneous) HIT syndromes, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

57 Background: Biosimilars have potential to reduce healthcare costs and increase access in the United States, but lack of uptake has contributed to lost savings. Filgrastim-sndz was the first FDA-approved biosimilar, and much can be learned by evaluating its uptake. In February 2016, the US Oncology Network converted to filgrastim-sndz as its short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) of choice for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) following myelosuppressive chemotherapy (MCT). To understand utilization and cost patterns, this study analyzes real-world data of GCSFs within a community oncology network during the initial period of conversion to the first biosimilar available in the US. Methods: This descriptive retrospective observational study used electronic health record data for female breast cancer (BC) patients receiving GCSF and MCT at high risk of FN. Patient cohorts were defined by first receipt of either filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz during the 410 days before and after biosimilar conversion. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for GCSF and complete blood counts (CBC) were collected at GCSF initiation through the earliest of 30 days following end of MCT, loss to follow up, death, or data cutoff. Results: 146 patients were identified: 81 (55.5%) filgrastim and 65 (44.5%) filgrastim-sndz. No directional differences existed in baseline characteristics between the cohorts. Higher proportions of filgrastim-sndz patients received dose-dense MCT (33.8% vs 22.2%). Time trends show an initial spike in HCRU and cost for filgrastim-sndz patients after formulary conversion, which subsequently decreased and converged to that of the filgrastim cohort after 12 months. When aggregated, the overall median total administration counts, per patient per month (PPPM) and dosage, were marginally higher for filgrastim-sndz (5 vs 3; 2.9 vs 1.4; 1920 vs 1440 mcg, respectively). Median PPPM costs were higher for filgrastim-sndz ($803 vs $545). Median CBC utilization and costs were higher for filgrastim-sndz (2.8 vs 2.5; $28 vs $23, respectively). Conclusions: This study provides insight into real-world HCRU and cost patterns after formulary conversion to a biosimilar for BC patients receiving MCT and GCSF. As a descriptive study, causal inferences cannot be made and an underlying effect from index chemotherapy cannot be excluded. Convergence of HCRU and costs after 12 months suggests that overall results may be driven by behavior at initial formulary switch. Since filgrastim-sndz was the first US biosimilar approved, the uptake may be indicative of an experience with biosimilar acceptance in general. Future real-world studies of biosimilars must consider inconsistent utilization and practice trends during the time frame directly following formulary conversion.

299 Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Per guidelines, prophylactic pegfilgrastim is to be given 24-72 hours after chemotherapy in each cycle, but administering pegfilgrastim within 24 hours of chemotherapy (same day) is commonly done to reduce the burden on patients (pts) and healthcare systems. The ideal timing is under debate in the supportive oncology care field, but an increasing body of knowledge supports same-day administration as an option. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of FN after same-day vs next-day administration of pegfilgrastim in pts with cancer receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Methods: A real-world, retrospective study of electronic health records of pts treated at Utah Cancer Specialists (Salt Lake City, UT) between February 2018 and December 2020 was conducted. Pts included in the study had a diagnosis of breast cancer, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or other cancers (eg. other lymphomas, prostate cancer); received a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen; and were administered either same-day or next-day prophylactic pegfilgrastim. FN was physician diagnosed; differences in FN incidence with same-day vs next-day pegfilgrastim were evaluated using a Chi-square test and Wald confidence limits. Results: 297 pts were included in this analysis. Most pts (63.6%) had a diagnosis of breast cancer, 23.6% had lymphoma, and 12.8% had other cancers. Pts received a broad range of chemotherapy regimens, with dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide being the most common (43.4%). In cycle 1, pegfilgrastim administration timing was balanced between same-day (39.7% [118/297]) and next-day (60.3% [179/297]). The pegfilgrastim administration day changed in subsequent cycles in 27 pts (9.1%): 4 pts in the cycle 1 same-day group and 23 pts in the cycle 1 next-day group. In cycle 1, 7/117 pts (6.0%) in the same-day pegfilgrastim group and 12/180 (6.7%) pts in the next-day group experienced ≥1 episode of FN. Across all cycles, 11/118 pts (9.3%) in the same-day pegfilgrastim group and 16/179 (8.9%) pts in the next-day group experienced ≥1 episode of FN. The difference in incidence of FN between same-day vs next-day pegfilgrastim was not statistically significant in cycle 1 (0.68% [95% CI –5.0% to 6.3%]; P=.814) and across all cycles (–0.38% [95% CI –7.1% to 6.3%]; P=.910). Conclusions: The overall incidence of FN was low in this pt population receiving prophylactic pegfilgrastim, and no significant differences were detected between same-day and next-day pegfilgrastim administration. These data support the same-day administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim.

Background: There are sparse data addressing whether standard risk factors for febrile neutropenia (FN) are relevant in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and primary prophylaxis for FN, which would have implications for variables to consider during real-world comparative analyses of FN incidence. Objective: To assess the impact of baseline patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk on the incidence of FN in patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic pegfilgrastim identified January 1, 2017-May 31, 2018 from MarketScan® research databases. The outcomes were defined as incidence of FN in the first cycle and among all cycles of chemotherapy using three different definitions for FN. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations models were used to compare outcomes among patients with and without patient-specific risk factors and among those receiving regimens categorized as high-, intermediate-, or other-risk for FN (low-risk or undefinable by clinical practice guidelines). Results: A total of 4460 patients were identified. In the first cycle of therapy, patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were at up to 2 times higher risk for FN across all definitions than those receiving high-risk regimens (P<0.01). The odds ratio for main FN among patients with ≥4 versus 0 risk factors was 15.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5, 169.4; P<0.01). Patients with ≥3 FN risk factors had significantly greater risks for FN across all cycles of treatment than those with no risk factors; this was true for all FN definitions. Discussion: The choice of FN definition significantly changed the impact of risk factors on the FN outcomes in our study, demonstrating the importance of evaluating all proxies for true FN events in a database study. This is particularly important during real-world study planning where potential missteps may lead to bias or confounding effects that render a study meaningless. Conclusions: In patients with BC receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk levels are determinants of FN risk. In real-world studies evaluating FN incidence, it is imperative to consider and control for these risk factors when conducting comparative analyses.

Abstract Background Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens. Methods An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10–20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1–4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included. Results The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators. Conclusions In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile. Trial registration PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572.

Abstract Background The gut microbiota influences many aspects of host physiology, including immune regulation, and is predictive of outcomes in cancer patients. However, whether conventional myelosuppressive chemotherapy affects the gut microbiota in humans with non-haematological malignancy, independent of antibiotic exposure, is unknown. Methods Faecal samples from 19 participants with non-haematological malignancy, who were receiving conventional chemotherapy regimens but not antibiotics, were examined prior to chemotherapy, 7–12 days after chemotherapy, and at the end of the first cycle of treatment. Gut microbiota diversity and composition was determined by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Results Compared to pre-chemotherapy samples, samples collected 7–12 days following chemotherapy exhibited increased richness (mean 120 observed species ± SD 38 vs 134 ± 40; p = 0.007) and diversity (Shannon diversity: mean 6.4 ± 0.43 vs 6.6 ± 0.41; p = 0.02). Composition was significantly altered, with a significant decrease in the relative abundance of gram-positive bacteria in the phylum Firmicutes (pre-chemotherapy median relative abundance [IQR] 0.78 [0.11] vs 0.75 [0.11]; p = 0.003), and an increase in the relative abundance of gram-negative bacteria (Bacteroidetes: median [IQR] 0.16 [0.13] vs 0.21 [0.13]; p = 0.01 and Proteobacteria: 0.015 [0.018] vs 0.03 [0.03]; p = 0.02). Differences in microbiota characteristics from baseline were no longer significant at the end of the chemotherapy cycle. Conclusions Conventional chemotherapy results in significant changes in gut microbiota characteristics during the period of predicted myelosuppression post-chemotherapy. Further study is indicated to link microbiome changes during chemotherapy to clinical outcomes.

e18687 Background: The long-acting injectable G-CSF, pegfilgrastim and its biosimilars have historically been given to patients 24 hours following the administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy for either primary or secondary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Previous literature has indicated that pegfilgrastim administration prior to 24 hours post chemotherapy, may result in a deepened and prolonged neutropenia due to the increase in circulating granulocytes exposed to chemotherapy. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to reduce potential SAR-CoV-2 exposure to cancer patients on therapy, we implemented same day administration of injectable pegfilgrastim-cbqv among select breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens from March 2020 – February 2021. Methods: Utilizing retrospective EHR chart reviews, 55 patients among 4 medical oncologists in our breast cancer group were identified as meeting the criteria of same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv administration. Inclusion was based on completion of at least 2 consecutive cycles of same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv 6 mg subcutaneous injection for primary or secondary prophylaxis. The selected patient charts were reviewed for the incidence and severity of FN. Among the patients who had documented FN, further subgroup analyses were done regarding baseline characteristics, timing of neutropenia, regimens, regimen sequence, and reported ADRs associated with pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Results: 9 (16.4%) of the 55 patients experienced FN (Grades 3-4) and 6 (10.9%) patients were hospitalized. There were no Grade 5 events and none had therapy discontinued due to FN. 8 (88.9%) of the patients experienced FN between cycles 1 and 2. Of note, there were no cases of COVID-19 among the 9 patients who had an episode of FN. 52 (94.5%) of the 55 patients received treatment with curative intent and 3 (5.5%) had metastatic disease on a subsequent line of therapy. The median age was 49.1 years (range 29-71) and patients were 56.4% Caucasian, 18.1% Black or African American, 12.7% Asian, and 12.7% Hispanic/Latina. Conclusions: Based on the retrospective data analysis, same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv appears to be a safe and effective option in the primary and secondary prophylaxis of FN with myelosuppressive standard of care chemotherapy used in breast cancer treatment. Though our review was limited by a relatively small sample size and confined to younger (49.1 median age) breast cancer patients, this opens the door to further re-evaluation of same day pegfilgrastim-cbqv administration in other patient populations. In a post pandemic treatment world, this slight change in practice has the potential to reduce patient financial toxicity associated with multiple medical visits, provide an alternative to on-body injector formulations, and ensure treatment adherence.

Background: Cancer patients may carry a worse prognosis with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the previous studies described the outcomes of hospitalized cancer patients. We aimed to study the clinical factors differentiating patients requiring hospital care vs. home recovery, and the trajectory of their anti-cancer treatment.Methods: This study was conducted in a community cancer center in New York City. Eligible patients were those who had cancer history and were diagnosed of SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1 and May 30, 2020, with confirmatory SARs-CoV-2 virus test or antibody test. Four groups were constructed: (A) hospitalized and survived, (B) hospitalized requiring intubation and/or deceased, (C) non-hospitalized, asymptomatic, with suspicious CT image findings, close exposure, or positive antibody test, and (D) non-hospitalized and symptomatic.Results: One hundred and six patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-five patients (33.0%) required hospitalization and 13 (12.3%) died. Thirty (28.3%) patients were asymptomatic and 41 (38.7%) were symptomatic and recovered at home. Comparing to patients who recovered at home, hospitalized patients were composed of older patients (median age 71 vs. 63 years old, p = 0.000299), more who received negative impact treatment (62.9 vs. 32.4%, p = 0.0036) that mostly represented myelosuppressive chemotherapy (45.7 vs. 23.9%, p = 0.0275), and more patients with poorer baseline performance status (PS ≥ 2 25.7 vs. 2.8%, p = 0.0007). Hypoxemia (35% in group A vs. 73.3% in group B, p = 0.0271) at presentation was significant to predict mortality in hospitalized patients. The median cumulative hospital stay for discharged patients was 16 days (range 5–60). The median duration of persistent positivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was 28 days (range 10–86). About 52.9% of patients who survived hospitalization and required anti-cancer treatment reinitiated therapy. Ninety-two percent of the asymptomatic patients and 51.7% of the symptomatic patients who recovered at home continued treatment on schedule and almost all reinitiated treatment after recovery.Conclusions: Cancer patients may have a more severe status of SARS-CoV-2 infection after receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Avoidance should be considered in older patients with poor performance status. More than two thirds of patients exhibit minimal to moderate symptoms, and many of them can continue or restart their anti-cancer treatment upon recovery.

<b><i>Background/Aim:</i></b> Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common and serious complication in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Data from two European non-interventional studies (NIS NADIR and NIS LEOS) investigating lipegfilgrastim for primary and secondary prophylaxis were pooled. Outcomes included the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN), use of anti-infectives and antimycotics, and adverse events and their relationship to lipegfilgrastim. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The safety population included 361 patients with lung cancer (median age, 66 years [range, 36–88]), of whom 322 had received 2 or more consecutive cycles of lipegfilgrastim (efficacy population [primary prophylaxis, 75.5%; secondary prophylaxis, 16.5%]). Almost 40% of the patients were considered to have a high risk (&#x3e;20%) of FN, and around 60% had an intermediate risk (10–20%). For all cycles, FN was reported in 3 patients (0.9%), neutropenia in 14 (4.3%), and grade 4 neutropenia in 9 (2.8%). Anti-infectives were used in 27 patients (8.4%) and antimycotics in 6 (1.9%). The incidence rates were lower for the patients’ first cycle (FN, 0.4%; neutropenia, 0.8%; grade 4 neutropenia, 0.8%; anti-infectives, 0.6%; antimycotics, 0.6%). Adverse drug reactions considered lipegfilgrastim related were reported in 35 patients (9.7%), and serious adverse drug reactions in 10 (2.8%). None of the fatal events reported in 28 patients (7.8%) were lipegfilgrastim related. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety to that reported in published pivotal trials.