Doxorubicin versus doxorubicin and cisplatin in endometrial carcinoma: definitive results of a randomised study (55872) by the EORTC Gynaecological Cancer Group

BACKGROUND: Combination chemotherapy yields better response rates which do not always lead to a survival advantage. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reported differences in the efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with doxorubicin (DOX) versus combination therapy with cisplatin (CDDP) in endometrial adenocarcinoma lead to significant advantage in favour of the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically-proven advanced and/or recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma and were chemo-naïve. Treatment consisted of either DOX 60 mg/m(2) alone or CDDP 50 mg/m2 added to DOX 60 mg/m2, every 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were entered and median follow-up is 7.1 years. The combination DOX-CDDP was more toxic than DOX alone. Haematological toxicity consisted mainly of white blood cell toxicity grade 3 and 4 (55% versus 30%). Non-haematological toxicity consisted mainly of grade 3 and 4 alopecia (72% versus 65%) and nausea/vomiting (36 % versus 12%). The combination DOX-CDDP provided a significantly higher response rate than single agent DOX (P <0.001). Thirty-nine patients (43%) responded on DOX-CDDP [13 complete responses (CRs) and 26 partial responses (PRs)], versus 15 patients (17%) on DOX alone (8 CR and 7 PR). The median overall survival (OS) was 9 months in the DOX-CDDP arm versus 7 months in the DOX alone arm (Wilcoxon P = 0.0654). Regression analysis showed that WHO performance status was statistically significant as a prognostic factor for survival, and stratifying for this factor, treatment effect reaches significance (hazard ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.03, P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to single agent DOX, the combination of DOX-CDDP results in higher but acceptable toxicity. The response rate produced is significantly higher, and a modest survival benefit is achieved with this combination regimen, especially in patients with a good performance status

Prophylactic G-CSF in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a health economic review

Although the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in conjunction with myelosuppressive chemotherapy is supported by clinical research evidence and advocated by international clinical guidelines when the consequent risk of febrile neutropenia exceeds 20%, there remains doubt as to the cost-effectiveness of the practice. There are limited economic data, and the data that are available are not necessarily applicable to the management of breast cancer in a European setting. Much of the available evidence on G-CSF in the management of febrile neutropenia is partial, focusing primarily on direct costs to the health service – that is, those related to hospitalisation and drug treatment. A full assessment of the cost effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis needs to take account of both costs and outcomes, including mortality, quality of life and patient functioning. As febrile neutropenia has been shown to affect productivity, consideration should also be given to quantifying the indirect costs of neutropenia

Optimizing Clinical Benefits of Bisphosphonates in Cancer Patients with Bone Metastases

Malignant bone disease is common in patients with advanced solid tumors or multiple myeloma. Bisphosphonates have been found to be important treatments for bone metastases. A positive benefit-risk ratio for bisphosphonates has been established, and ongoing clinical trials will determine whether individualized therapy is possible

Single-dose palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy containing steroids: results of a phase II study from the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi (GISL)

PURPOSE: The control of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy is paramount for overall treatment success in cancer patients. Antiemetic therapy during chemotherapy in lymphoma patients generally consists of anti-serotoninergic drugs and dexamethasone. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron, a second-generation serotonin type 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) containing steroids. METHODS: Patients received a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron (0.25 mg) before administration of chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting and no rescue therapy during overall phase (0-120 h) was the primary endpoint. Complete control (CC) defined as CR and only mild nausea was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Eighty-six evaluable patients entered in the study. A CR was observed in 74 patients (86.0%) during the overall phase; the CR during the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases was 90.7% and 88.4%, respectively. CC was 89.5% during the acute and 84.9% during the delayed phase; the overall CC was 82.6%. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first trial, which demonstrated the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron in control CINV in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving MEC regimen containing steroids

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

Abstract Background Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) such as Filgrastim are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. We investigated a new G-CSF, XM02, and compared it to Neupogen™ after myelotoxic chemotherapy in breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods A total of 348 patients with BC receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy were randomised to treatment with daily injections (subcutaneous 5 μg/kg/day) for at least 5 days and a maximum of 14 days in each cycle of XM02 (n = 140), Neupogen™ (n = 136) or placebo (n = 72). The primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. Results The mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.1, 1.1, and 3.9 days in the XM02, Neupogen™, and placebo group, respectively. Superiority of XM02 over placebo and equivalence of XM02 with Neupogen™ could be demonstrated. Toxicities were similar between XM02 and Neupogen™. Conclusion XM02 was superior to placebo and equivalent to Neupogen™ in reducing DSN after myelotoxic chemotherapy. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02270769</p

Cost-effectiveness of febrile neutropenia prevention with primary versus secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review

The adoption of primary (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) of febrile neutropenia (FN), with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in breast cancer (BC) could be affected by its “value for money”. This systematic review examined (i) cost-effectiveness of PP versus SP, (ii) FN threshold at which PP is cost-effective including the guidelines 20 % threshold and (iii) potential impact of G-CSF efficacy assumptions on outcomes. The systematic review identified all cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses (CEA/CUA) involving PP versus SP G-CSF for AC in BC that met predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Five relevant CEA/CUA were identified. These CEA/CUA examined different AC regimens (TAC = 2; FEC-D = 1; TC = 2) and G-CSF formulations (filgrastim “F” = 4; pegfilgrastim “P” = 4) with varying baseline FN—risk (range 22–32 %), mortality (range 1.4–6.0 %) and utility (range 0.33–0.47). The potential G-CSF benefit, including FN risk reduction with P versus F, varied among models. Overall, relative to SP, PP was not associated with good value for money, as per commonly utilized CE thresholds, at the baseline FN rates examined, including the consensus 20 % FN threshold, in most of these studies. The value for money associated with PP versus SP was primarily dependent on G-CSF benefit assumptions including reduced FN mortality and improved BC survival. PP G-CSF for FN prevention in BC patients undergoing AC may not be a cost-effective strategy at the guidelines 20 % FN threshold

Comparison of the pharmacodynamic profiles of a biosimilar filgrastim and Amgen filgrastim: results from a randomized, phase I trial

Further to the patent expiry of Neupogen® (Amgen filgrastim), Hospira has developed a biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™) that may offer a clinically effective alternative for multiple hematologic and oncologic indications. Here results are reported from a phase I trial, primarily designed to compare the pharmacodynamic profiles of Hospira filgrastim and Amgen filgrastim. A phase I, single-center, double-blind, randomized trial was undertaken to demonstrate equivalence of the pharmacodynamic characteristics of Hospira filgrastim and Amgen filgrastim. Fifty healthy volunteers were randomized to receive 5 or 10 µg/kg dosing, before further randomization to treatment sequence. All volunteers received five daily subcutaneous doses of Hospira filgrastim or Neupogen, with subsequent crossover to the alternative treatment. Bioequivalence was evaluated by analysis of variance; if the estimated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of ‘test’ to ‘reference’ treatment means were within the conventional equivalence limits of 0.80–1.25, then bioequivalence was concluded. Forty-eight volunteers completed the study. Geometric mean absolute neutrophil count area under the curve from time 0 to the last time point at day 5 (primary endpoint) was comparable in volunteers given Hospira filgrastim or Amgen filgrastim at 5 µg/kg (ratio of means, 0.98; 90% CI, 0.92–1.05) or 10 µg/kg (ratio, 0.97; 90% CI, 0.93–1.01); 90% CIs were within the predefined range necessary to demonstrate bioequivalence. Hospira filgrastim was well tolerated with no additional safety concerns over Amgen filgrastim. Hospira filgrastim is bioequivalent with Amgen filgrastim with regard to its pharmacodynamic characteristics