Novel risk stratification algorithm for estimating the risk of death in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: external validation in a retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN: A novel risk stratification algorithm estimating risk of death in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma starting second-line treatment was recently developed using multivariable Cox regression of data from a Czech registry. It uses 16 parameters routinely collected in medical practice to stratify patients into four distinct risk groups in terms of survival expectation. To provide insight into generalisability of the risk stratification algorithm, the study aimed to validate the risk stratification algorithm using real-world data from specifically designed retrospective chart audits from three European countries. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Physicians collected data from 998 patients (France, 386; Germany, 344; UK, 268) and applied the risk stratification algorithm. METHODS: The performance of the Cox regression model for predicting risk of death was assessed by Nagelkerke's R2, goodness of fit and the C-index. The risk stratification algorithm's ability to discriminate overall survival across four risk groups was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and HRs. RESULTS: Consistent with the Czech registry, the stratification performance of the risk stratification algorithm demonstrated clear differentiation in risk of death between the four groups. As risk groups increased, risk of death doubled. The C-index was 0.715 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.734). CONCLUSIONS: Validation of the novel risk stratification algorithm in an independent 'real-world' dataset demonstrated that it stratifies patients in four subgroups according to survival expectation

Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma

Registry data are important for monitoring the impact of new therapies on treatment algorithms and outcomes, and for guiding clinical decision making in multiple myeloma (MM). This observational study analyzed real-world data from patients in the Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies who were treated for symptomatic MM from 2008 to 2013 in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from initiation of first-line treatment. Secondary endpoints included OS and progression-free survival per treatment line, treatment patterns, and treatment response. Between 2008 and 2013, 917, 583, 283, and 139 patients had initiated first, second, third, and fourth treatment lines, respectively. Thalidomide-based regimens were the most frequently used first-line treatment (66%); bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens were most often used in the second line (41% and 27%, respectively). The median OS (95% confidence interval) ranged from 37.5 months (34.8–41.8 months) in the first line to 9.2 months (6.2–12.3 months) in the fourth line. Univariate analyses showed that survival benefits were most apparent in younger patients (65 vs >65 years). These analyses provide important real-world information on treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with MM

G-CSF use in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) as observed in clinical practice in Italy

Treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) requires chemotherapy regimens with significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). For patients at ≥20% FN risk, guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). This study assessed whether G-CSF use in NHL was in line with recommendations in routine practice. This was a retrospective, observational study of adult NHL patients receiving first-line (R)CHOP-like chemotherapy and G-CSF support between June 2010 and 2012, in Italy. The primary outcome was whether G-CSF was provided as PP, which was defined as G-CSF initiation on days 1–3 after chemotherapy, ≥3 days’ use for daily G-CSFs and continued prophylaxis from cycle 1 across all cycles. Secondary prophylaxis was defined as continued prophylaxis from cycle 2 or later, and all other use was defined as Suboptimal. The analysis included 199 patients, 61% of whom had diffuse large B cell lymphoma and 21% follicular lymphoma. (R)CHOP-21 was given to 52% of patients and (R)CHOP-14 to 32%. Overall, 29% of patients received PP, while two-thirds received Suboptimal G-CSF. Of patients receiving daily G-CSF, 3% received PP and 94% received Suboptimal use; with pegfilgrastim, 65% received PP and 26% Suboptimal use. FN occurred in 13 patients (7%) and grade 3/4 neutropenia in 43%. Chemotherapy dose delays occurred in 22% and dose reductions in 18% of patients. Delivery of G-CSF, particularly daily G-CSFs, was not in accordance with guideline or product label recommendations in a large proportion of NHL patients receiving chemotherapy in Italy

Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus eight cycles of bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: an indirect comparison using data from the phase 3 ENDEAVOR and CASTOR trials

In ENDEAVOR, carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd56) demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). Both agents were administered until disease progression; the EU label for Vd, however, stipulates a maximum of eight treatment cycles. Here, matching-adjusted treatment comparison was used to compare efficacy of Kd56 with Vd, if Vd was administered for 8 cycles (Vd-8). Data from ENDEAVOR and CASTOR trials (which compared daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with Vd-8) were used. Hazard ratios of PFS were estimated for Vd vs. Vd-8 and Kd vs. Vd-8. For cycles 1–8, risk reduction in PFS for Kd56 vs. Vd-8 was equal to that estimated in ENDEAVOR (HR: 0.53; 95% CI 0.44–0.65). Beyond eight cycles, risk reduction in PFS for Kd56 and Vd-8 was estimated to be 60% (HR: 0.40; 95% CI 0.26–0.63). The analysis suggested that PFS benefit of Kd56 over Vd increases when Vd is given for eight cycles only. © 2019, © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Chemotherapy treatment patterns and neutropenia management in gastric cancer

Background: Potentially myelosuppressive doublet and triplet chemotherapy combination regimens are considered the most active treatments in gastric cancer. This multicenter prospective observational study was designed to gain insight into the chemotherapy regimens being used in Europe and to evaluate neutropenia management in patients identified as at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN).Methods: Eligible patients had gastric cancer, were scheduled for ≥ 3 cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk ≥ 20 %. Data were collected for up to ten cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (defined as G-CSF initiated on days 1–7 of cycle 1). Secondary endpoints included FN incidence, chemotherapy administration, and G-CSF use.Results: Of 199 patients who met the eligibility criteria and started at least one cycle of chemotherapy, mean age was 63 years, 76 % were men, 83 % had an ECOG score of 0 or 1, 54 % had metastatic disease, and 24 % had received prior chemotherapy. A total of 27 different backbone regimens were given; the most common regimen was modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF). Despite all patients having been identified as having a ≥ 20 % FN risk, only 70 (35 %) received G-CSF primary prophylaxis. FN occurred in 14 patients overall (7 %). Most FN events occurred in patients who received DCF/modified DCF (9/14 events, 64 %).Conclusions: The results of this study reveal a high use of myelotoxic treatment regimens in gastric cancer in Europe and low adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the use of primary and secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for FN.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

First-line panitumumab plus irinotecan/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Purpose Panitumumab monotherapy is approved for KRAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) progressing after standard chemotherapy. This study evaluated first-line panitumumab plus FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC. Methods In this phase II, single-arm study, panitumumab (6 mg/kg) and FOLFIRI [irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) and leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)) followed by a 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus and a 2,400-3,000 mg/m(2) continuous infusion] were administered every 14 days until progression. Data were analysed descriptively overall and by tumour KRAS status. Results KRAS data were available for 145/154 (94%) patients: 59% KRAS WT and 41% mutant (MT); mean follow-up was 39.5 versus 35.8 weeks, respectively. Objective responses occurred in 49% of patients: 56% versus 38% in the KRAS WT versus MT groups [(18% difference (95% CI 1-35%); odds ratio 2.1 (95% CI 1.0-4.4)]; median duration of response was 13.0 versus 7.4 months. More patients in the WT group underwent R0 resection (8% vs. 5%); median progression-free survival also favoured this group (8.9 vs. 7.2 months). The most common adverse events (any grade) were integument toxicities (98%), diarrhoea (79%) and stomatitis/oral mucositis (51%). Conclusions As expected, consistently favourable efficacy was observed in patients with KRAS WT versus MT tumours receiving first-line panitumumab plus FOLFIRI treatment

A prospective cohort study to evaluate the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector versus other options for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia: breast cancer subgroup analysis

Breast cancer chemotherapy often carries a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN); guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), such as pegfilgrastim. Neulasta Onpro on-body injector (OBI) is a delivery device administering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after application. This prospective study examined patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy with a high risk of FN, receiving OBI ("OBI") or other options (other G-CSF or none; "other"). The primary endpoint was FN incidence; secondary endpoints included chemotherapy delivery, adherence (G-CSF in all cycles), compliance (G-CSF day after chemotherapy), and FN incidence in patients receiving curative or palliative treatment. A total of 1776 patients with breast cancer were enrolled (OBI, n = 1196; other, n = 580). Across all cycles, FN incidence was lower for OBI (4.4% [95% CI, 3.3-5.6%]) than other (7.4% [5.3-9.6%]). For curative treatment, the FN incidence across all cycles was lower for OBI (4.6% [3.4-5.8%]) than for other (7.1% [5.0-9.3%]). For palliative treatment (OBI, n = 33; other, n = 20), 3 patients (15%) in the other and none in the OBI group had FN. After adjusting for baseline covariates, FN incidence remained lower for OBI (4.6% [3.5-6.1%]) versus other (7.8% [5.7-10.5%]). Adherence was higher for OBI (93.8%) than for other G-CSF (69.8%), as was compliance (90.5 and 53.2%, respectively). Chemotherapy dose delays/reductions were similar for OBI (4.7%/32.3%, respectively) and other (4.7%/30.0%) groups. Pegfilgrastim OBI was associated with a lower FN incidence in patients with breast cancer compared to other options for FN prophylaxis. www. gov , NCT02178475, registered 30 June, 2014

Attitudes of physicians toward assessing risk and using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy associated with an intermediate risk of febrile neutropenia.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially fatal complication of chemotherapy. This prospective, observational study describes physicians' approaches toward assessing FN risk in patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate (10-20 %) FN risk. In the baseline investigator assessment, physicians selected factors considered important when assessing overall FN risk and deciding on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (PP). Physicians then completed patient assessments using the same lists of factors. The final FN risk scores and whether G-CSF PP was planned were reported. The final analysis included 165 physicians and 944 patients. The most frequently considered factor in both assessments was chemotherapy agents in the backbone (88 % of investigator and 93 % of patient assessments). History of FN (83 %), baseline laboratory values (76 %) and age (73 %) were commonly selected at baseline, whereas tumor type (72 %), guidelines (62 %) and tumor stage (43 %) were selected most during patient assessments. Median investigator-reported FN risk threshold for G-CSF PP was 20 % (range 10-85 %). G-CSF PP was planned in 82 % of patients with an FN risk at or above this threshold; therefore, almost one-fifth of qualifying patients would not receive G-CSF PP. Physicians generally follow guidelines, but also consider individual patient characteristics when assessing FN risk and deciding on G-CSF PP. A standardized FN risk assessment may optimize the use of G-CSF PP, which may minimize the incidence of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy with an intermediate FN risk. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01813721.Funding for this support was provided by Amgen (Europe) GmbH

A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices

Purpose We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis. Methods In this prospective observational study, adult patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma at risk for FN were stratified into subgroups based on FN prophylaxis used in the first chemotherapy cycle: pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other (pegfilgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim prefilled syringe, daily filgrastim, or no granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) for up to 4 planned chemotherapy cycles. Results This US study enrolled 2575 eligible patients (OBI, 1624; Other, 951). FN incidence was lower in the OBI group (6.4% [95% CI, 5.2-7.6%]) than in the Other group (9.4% [7.5-11.2%]), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (0.47-0.91; p = .006). A decreased risk of dose delays among patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other was observed (RR for >= 5 days: 0.64 [0.42-0.96], p = .023; RR for >= 7 days: 0.62 [0.40-0.91], p = .016). Adherence, defined as G-CSF support for all chemotherapy cycles, was 94.0% (92.9-95.2%) in the OBI group compared with 58.4% (55.2-61.5%) in the Other group. Compliance with pegfilgrastim, defined as administration the day after chemotherapy, was 88.3% in the OBI group and 48.8% in the prefilled syringe group. Conclusion Patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI had a lower incidence of FN compared with those receiving alternatives. The OBI was associated with improved adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended G-CSF prophylaxis