A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of a single fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim (a pegylated version of filgrastim) per cycle of chemotherapy, compared with daily administration of filgrastim, in the provision of neutrophil support. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 157) were randomized to receive either a single 6 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) injection of pegfilgrastim or daily 5 mg/kg s.c. injections of filgrastim, after doxorubicin and docetaxel chemotherapy (60 mg/m(2) and 75 mg/m(2), respectively). Duration of grade 4 neutropenia, depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to neutrophil recovery and safety information were recorded. RESULTS: A single 6 mg injection of pegfilgrastim was as effective as daily injections of filgrastim for all efficacy measures for all cycles. The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 1.8 and 1.6 days for the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups, respectively. Results for all efficacy end points in cycles 2-4 were consistent with the results from cycle 1. A trend towards a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia was noted across all cycles with pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim (13% versus 20%, respectively). A single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim was as safe and well tolerated as standard daily filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: A single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim administered once per cycle of chemotherapy was comparable to multiple daily injections of filgrastim in safely providing neutrophil support during myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim may have utility in other clinical settings of neutropenia.     

Randomized comparison of prophylactic antidiarrheal treatment versus no prophylactic antidiarrheal treatment in patients receiving CPT-11 (irinotecan) for advanced 5-FU-resistant colorectal cancer: an open-label multicenter phase II study

Delayed diarrhea is the main toxicity of irinotecan at the currently recommended dose of 350 mg/m2 30-minute intravenous infusion, once every 3 weeks. This phase II, multicenter, open-label, randomized study was primarily designed to evaluate the effect of a 15-day Tiorfan (racecadotril) treatment on the incidence and severity of irinotecan-induced delayed diarrhea. One hundred thirty-six patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who failed to respond to a 5-fluorouracil-based treatment received 714 cycles of irinotecan. The patients were randomly allocated either to group A (68 patients) and received Tiorfan (300 mg/day) from D0 to D15 or to group B (68 patients) with no prophylactic treatment. Delayed diarrhea occurred in 197 of 355 cycles (55%) in Group A and 203 of 344 cycles (59%) in Group B. grade III-IV diarrhea was reported in 17 of 40 compliant patients (42%) in group A and 31 of 68 evaluable patients (45%) in group B. No difference was observed between the two groups for delayed diarrhea characteristics, incidence, or severity. The response rate in 99 evaluable patients was 12.1% (6.4%-20.2%). This study has shown that Tiorfan given prophylactically at 300 mg/day has no effect on delayed diarrhea.     

Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar,to the reference: a phase III,randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

BackgroundBiosimilars of filgrastim are in widespread clinical use in Europe. This phase III study compares biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006), with the US-licensed reference product, Neupogen®, in breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy (TAC).Patients and methodsA total of 218 patients receiving 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim over six chemotherapy cycles were randomized 1:1:1:1 into four arms. Two arms received only one product (nonalternating), biosimilar or reference, and two arms (alternating) received alternating treatments during each cycle (biosimilar then reference or vice versa). The primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1.ResultsThe baseline characteristics were balanced between the four treatment arms. Noninferiority of biosimilar versus the reference was demonstrated: DSN (days) in cycle 1 was 1.17 ± 1.11 (biosimilar, N = 101) and 1.20 ± 1.02 (reference, N = 103), 97.5% confidence interval lower boundary for the difference was -0.26 days (above the predefined limit of -1 day). No clinically meaningful differences were observed regarding any other efficacy parameter: incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN); hospitalization due to FN; incidence of infections; depth and time of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir and time to ANC recovery during cycle 1 and across all cycles. The pattern and frequency of adverse events were similar across all treatments.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that biosimilar and the reference filgrastim are similar with no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in prevention of severe neutropenia. Biosimilar filgrastim could represent an important alternative to the reference product, potentially benefiting public health by increasing access to filgrastim treatment.Study numberNCT01519700.     

A randomized,double-blind,active control,multicenter, dose-finding study of lipegfilgrastim (XM22) in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive therapy

This dose-ranging study was conducted to identify the optimal fixed dose of lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim 6.0 mg for the provision of neutrophil support during myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. A phase 2 study was conducted in which 208 chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 3.0, 4.5, or 6.0 mg or pegfilgrastim 6.0 mg. Study drugs were administered as a single subcutaneous injection on day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle (doxorubicin/docetaxel on day 1 for four 3-week cycles). The primary outcome measure was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. Patients treated with lipegfilgrastim experienced shorter DSN in cycle 1 with higher doses. The mean DSN was 0.76 days in the lipegfilgrastim 6.0-mg group and 0.87 days in the pegfilgrastim 6.0-mg group, with no significant differences between treatment groups. Treatment with lipegfilgrastim 6.0 mg was consistently associated with a higher absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at nadir, shorter ANC recovery time, and a similar safety and tolerability profile compared with pegfilgrastim. This phase 2 study demonstrated that lipegfilgrastim 6.0 mg is the optimal dose for patients with breast cancer and provides neutrophil support that is at least equivalent to the standard 6.0-mg fixed dose of pegfilgrastim.     

Adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine versus chemotherapy at relapse in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer submitted to radical cystectomy: an Italian,multicenter, randomized phase III trial

BackgroundThe purpose of the study was to evaluate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) versus surgery alone in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).Patients and methodsOne hundred and ninety-four patients with pT2G3, pT3–4, N0–2 transitional cell bladder carcinoma were randomly allocated to control (92 patients) or to four courses of AC (102 patients). These latter patients were further randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² days 1, 8 and 15 and cisplatin 70 mg/m² day 2 or gemcitabine as above plus cisplatin 70 mg/m² day 15, every 28 days.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 35 months, the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 48.5%, with no difference between the two arms [P = 0.24, hazard ratio (HR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84–1.99]. Mortality hazard was significantly correlated with Nodes (N) and Tumor (T) stage. The control and AC arms had comparable disease-free survival (42.3% and 37.2%, respectively; P = 0.70, HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73–1.59). Only 62% of patients received the planned cycles. A significant higher incidence of thrombocytopenia was observed in patients receiving cisplatin on day 2 (P = 0.006). A similar global quality of life was observed in the two arms.ConclusionThe study was underpowered to demonstrate that AC with cisplatin and gemcitabine improves OS and disease-free survival in patients with MIBC.     

Double-blind,placebo-controlled,randomized phase III trial of darbepoetin alfa in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving chemotherapy often develop anemia. Darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp(TM)) is an erythropoiesis-stimulating glycoprotein that has been shown, in dose-finding studies, to be safe and clinically active when administered to patients with cancer every 1, 2, or 3 weeks. This phase III study compared the safety and efficacy of darbepoetin alfa with placebo in patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 320 anemic patients (hemoglobin or=25% improvement; mean difference = 13%; 95% CI = 2% to 23%, P =.019) than patients receiving placebo. Patients receiving darbepoetin alfa did not appear to have any untoward effect in disease outcome and did not develop antibodies to the drug. Adverse events were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia can safely and effectively be treated with weekly darbepoetin alfa therapy. Darbepoetin alfa decreased blood transfusion requirements, increased hemoglobin concentration, and decreased fatigue. Although no conclusions can be drawn about survival from this study, the potential salutary effect on disease outcome warrants further investigation in a prospectively designed study.     

First-line gemcitabine versus epirubicin in postmenopausal women aged 60 or older with metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of first-line gemcitabine versus epirubicin in the treatment of postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged > or = 60 years (median 68 years) with clinically measurable MBC received either gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) or epirubicin 35 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: Of 410 patients entered, 397 (198 gemcitabine and 199 epirubicin) were randomized and qualified for the time to progressive disease (TTP) and survival analyses. Total cycles administered in 185 gemcitabine and 192 epirubicin patients, respectively, were 699 (mean 3.5, range 0-12) and 917 (mean 4.6, range 0-10). Epirubicin demonstrated statistically significant superiority in TTP (6.1 and 3.4 months, P=0.0001), overall survival (19.1 and 11.8 months, P=0.0004), and independently assessed response rate (40.3% and 16.4% in 186 and 183 evaluable patients, P <0.001). For gemcitabine (n=190) and epirubicin (n=192), respectively, common WHO grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (25.3% and 17.9%) and leukopenia (14.3% and 19.3%). Of the 28 on-study deaths (17 gemcitabine, 11 epirubicin), three were considered possibly or probably related to treatment (gemcitabine). CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal women > or =60 years of age with MBC tolerate chemotherapy well. In this study, epirubicin was superior to gemcitabine in the treatment of MBC in women age > or =60, confirming that anthracyclines remain important drugs for first-line treatment of MBC.     

A randomized,open-label,phase III trial comparing amrubicin versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundAmrubicin is approved for treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer. However, no direct comparisons between amrubicin and docetaxel, a standard treatment for NSCLC, have been reported.Patients and methodsWe conducted a randomized phase III trial of Japanese NSCLC patients after one or two chemotherapy regimens. Patients were randomized to amrubicin (35 mg/m² on days 1–3 every 3 weeks) or docetaxel (60 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks). Outcomes included progression-free survival, overall survival, tumor responses, and safety.ResultsBetween October 2010 and June 2012, 202 patients were enrolled across 32 institutions. Median progression-free survival (3.6 versus 3.0 months; P= 0.54) and overall survival (14.6 versus 13.5 months; P = 0.86) were comparable in the amrubicin and docetaxel groups, respectively. The overall response rate was 14.4% (14/97) and 19.6% (19/97) in the amrubicin and docetaxel groups, respectively (P = 0.45). The disease control rate was 55.7% in both groups. Adverse events occurred in all patients, and included grade ≥3 neutropenia occurred in 82.7% and 78.8% of patients in the amrubicin and docetaxel groups, respectively, grade ≥3 leukopenia occurred in 63.3% and 70.7%, and grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia occurred in 13.3% and 18.2% of patients in the amrubicin and docetaxel groups, respectively. Of eight cardiac-related events in the amrubicin group, three were considered related to amrubicin and resolved without treatment discontinuation.ConclusionsThis was the first phase III study to compare amrubicin and docetaxel in patients with pretreated NSCLC. Amrubicin did not significantly improve the primary endpoint of PFS compared with docetaxel.Clinical trial registrationNCT01207011 (ClinicalTrials.gov)     

Docetaxel versus docetaxel/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: preliminary analysis of a multicenter, randomized phase III study

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of docetaxel versus the combination of docetaxel/cisplatin as frontline treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a multicenter, randomized, prospective phase III trial. Patients with unresectable stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV NSCLC who had previously undergone no chemotherapy were allocated to receive either docetaxel (100 mg/m2 in a 1-hour intravenous infusion; group A) or the combination of docetaxel (100 mg/m2 day 1) and cisplatin (80 mg/m2 day 2) after adequate hydration (group B). Appropriate premedication was given before docetaxel infusion. All patients in group B received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 microg/m2 subcutaneously) support from days 3 to 9 after treatment. Response and toxicity were assessed by World Health Organization criteria. From March 1999 to November 2001, 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel (group A, n = 146) or docetaxel/cisplatin (group B, n = 156). The overall response rate was significantly higher in the combination arm (18% vs. 36%; P < 0.001). However, the 2 groups did not differ in median duration of response, time to progression (TTP), median overall survival (OS), or 1-year survival rate. Drug combination was associated with higher toxicity than single-agent therapy. Both regimens had comparable activity in terms of TTP and OS in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC; however, single-agent therapy had a more favorable toxicity profile.     

Lenograstim as support for ACE chemotherapy of small-cell lung cancer: a phase III, multicenter, randomized study

This phase III study was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of lenograstim as support for ACE (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide) chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with small-cell lung cancer. Patients were randomized to receive up to six 3-week cycles of either ACE alone (n = 139) or ACE with lenograstim support (150 microg/m2/day subcutaneously, days 4-13, n = 141). Compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, the lenograstim support group was more likely to achieve neutrophil recovery (absolute neutrophil count, > or =1.5 x 10(9) cells/l) by day 14 (95.8-100% vs. 14.3-24.1% across the cycles) and less likely to experience at least one infectious episode (36.7 vs. 54.0%; p = 0.004), chemotherapy delay (51.8 vs. 56.2%; NS), or dose reduction (17.3 vs. 27.7%; p = 0.037). Objective response and event-free and overall survival rates were similar. Lenograstim was well tolerated. Lenograstim may allow the interval between cycles of ACE to be reduced to 2 weeks; such dose intensification may lead to more favorable objective response and survival rates.