Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is ≥20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from ‘real-world’ clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications

Lymphomes diffus à grandes cellules B

Les lymphomes diffus à grandes cellules B représentent près d’un tiers des lymphomes non hodgkiniens, l’âge médian de leur survenue est de 70 ans et ils sont parfois liés aux déficits immunitaires. Le diagnostic est histologique : envahissement diffus du ganglion par de grandes cellules exprimant les marqueurs immunologiques B matures (notamment CD20). Les mutations des gènes C-MYC et BCL-2 sont de mauvais pronostic. L’évaluation par imagerie médicale doit inclure la tomographie par émission de positons couplée au scanner (TEP-scan) qui va définir le stade de la maladie et la qualité de la réponse thérapeutique après traitement. La polychimiothérapie (du type cyclophosphamide, doxorubicine, vincristine et prednisone [CHOP]) associée aux anticorps anti-CD20 offre un taux de guérison de près de 60 %. La rechute et la résistance au traitement sont de mauvais pronostic. Les cellules T modifiées à récepteur antigénique chimérique (CAR-T) permettent, dans ces situations, d’obtenir un taux élevé de réponses complètes

Salvage Regimen With Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation With Or Without Rituximab Maintenance For Relapsed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (Dlbcl): Coral Final Report

Times Cited: 0 References: 0 Citation MapAbstract : Background: Chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for relapsed DLBCL. No study has compared salvage therapies and evaluated maintenance post ASCT.Methods: DLBCL CD 20+ in first relapse or pts refractory after first therapy were randomized between R ICE (rituximab, ifosfamide, etoposide, carboplatinum) or R DHAP (rituximab dexamethasone cytarabine cisplatinum). Responding patients received BEAM and ASCT then randomized between observation or maintenance with rituximab every 2 m for 1 yr (Gisselbrecht J Clin Oncol; 2010).Results: Analysis was made on 477 pts (R ICE: 243 pts; R DHAP: 234 pts): 255 relapses >12m, 213 refractory/early relapses; 306 pts had prior rituximab; secondary(s) IPI 0-1: 281 pts; s IPI 2-3:181pts. There was no difference in response rate between R ICE 63.6% and R DHAP 64.3%. There was no difference between R ICE and R DHAP at 4 yrs for EFS (26% vs 37% p=0.2) and OS (43% vs 51%, p=0.3). Factors affecting 4 yrs EFS, PFS and OS were: prior treatment with rituximab; early relapse< 12 m; s IPI 2-3. ASCT was performed in 255 pts and 242 randomized for maintenance: 122 pts rituximab (R), 120 pts observation (O). Distribution between R/O arms were respectively: median age 54 /53 yrs, Male 76/83; female 46/37; secondary IPI 0-1: 84/81; sIPI 2-3: 36/36. 89/76 relapses >12m., 33/41 refractory/early relapses. Median follow up was 44 m with 111 events. 4 yrs EFS was 52.8 % (CI 46-59) with 63% (CI 56-69) OS. There was no difference in EFS, PFS and OS between R and O arms. In multivariate analysis, sIPI2-3 significantly affected EFS, PFS, OS (p=0.0004). Women (83pts) had a better 4 yrs EFS 63% than male (159pts) 37% (p=0.01). The difference was only in the R arm (p=0.004). Gender was an independent prognostic factor in the R arm. Toxicity was mild with 12% SAE versus 4% for R /O respectively.Conclusions: There was no difference between R ICE and R DHAP and between post ASCT maintenance with R or O. Women did significantly better after ASCT with rituximab. Early relapses to upfront rituximab-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis