Comparison of pegfilgrastim on day 2 vs. day 4 as primary prophylaxis of intense dose-dense chemotherapy in patients with node-positive primary breast cancer within the prospective, multi-center GAIN study: (GBG 33)

BackgroundPreliminary data suggest that pegfilgrastim given on day 4 (P4) might be superior to pegfilgrastim on day 2 (P2) in reducing grade 4 leucopenia.MethodsPatients with node-positive primary breast cancer receiving epirubicin–paclitaxel–cyclophosphamide chemotherapy were randomized to receive P2 versus P4. Primary endpoint was leucopenia grade 4, assuming a risk reduction of 50% with P4 from 50% in P2 to 25% with P4.ResultsThree-hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to P2 (n = 174) versus P4 (n = 177). The rate of leucopenia (grade 4) was 47.1% with P2 and 42.0% with P4 (p = 0.387), neutropenia (grade 3 + 4) was 47.9% versus 40.8% (p = 0.337), FN was 4.7% versus 8.0% (p = 0.271), and infections was 29.9% versus 25.4% (p = 0.404), respectively.ConclusionThis study failed to demonstrate that pegfilgrastim on day 4 was more efficacious than on day 2 with respect to grade 4 leucopenia (the primary endpoint), febrile neutropenia, or infections.

[1]  S. Steinberg,et al.  Randomized Trial and Pharmacokinetic Study of Pegfilgrastim versus Filgrastim after Dose-Intensive Chemotherapy in Young Adults and Children with Sarcomas , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[2]  G. Lyman,et al.  Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. , 2010, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[3]  G. Aravantinos,et al.  Pegfilgrastim Administered on the Same Day with Dose-Dense Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Is Associated with a Higher Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia as Compared to Conventional Growth Factor Support: Matched Case-Control Study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group , 2008, Oncology.

[4]  M. Aapro,et al.  Febrile neutropenia and related complications in breast cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis versus current practice neutropaenia management: results from an integrated analysis. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[5]  L. R. Hill,et al.  Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  M. Piccart,et al.  A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. , 2003, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[7]  A. Schneeweiss,et al.  Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  Andreas Schneeweiss,et al.  Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an AGO phase III study. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  S. Loibl,et al.  Evaluating the impact of Relative Total Dose Intensity (RTDI) on patients' short and long-term outcome in taxane- and anthracycline-based chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer- a pooled analysis , 2011, BMC Cancer.

[10]  R. Pettengell,et al.  Use of Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim to Support Delivery of Chemotherapy , 2012, BioDrugs.

[11]  Barbara L. Smith,et al.  Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  J. Crawford,et al.  Randomized, dose-escalation study of SD/01 compared with daily filgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  W. Eiermann,et al.  Pegfilgrastim +/- ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  J. Straughn,et al.  The safety and efficacy of day 1 versus day 2 administration of pegfilgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[15]  N. Kearney,et al.  EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[16]  R. Kreienberg,et al.  Gain study: A phase III trial to compare ETC versus EC-TX and ibandronate versus observation in patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  A. Saven,et al.  Randomized, double-blind, phase 2, study evaluating same-day vs next-day administration of pegfilgrastim with R-CHOP in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  J. Vose,et al.  Randomized, multicenter, open-label study of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim after chemotherapy for lymphoma. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Myeloid growth factors. , 2013, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.