1 / 90

CSFs

טיפול בגורמי צמיחה של השורה הלבנה: קווים מנחים בספרות ונתונים לביסוסם - מפגש החוג לכימותרפיה/האיגוד הישראלי לרדיותרפיה ואונקולוגיה קליני- שרתון סיטי טאור 19.5.06 (עודכן- דצמבר 2008) פרופ' נסים חיים - מכון אונקולוגי-מ.ר. רמב"ם. CSFs. Therapeutic benefits…. Side effects…. Guidelines….

faunus
Télécharger la présentation

CSFs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. טיפול בגורמי צמיחה של השורה הלבנה: קווים מנחים בספרות ונתונים לביסוסם - מפגש החוג לכימותרפיה/האיגוד הישראלי לרדיותרפיה ואונקולוגיה קליני- שרתון סיטי טאור19.5.06 (עודכן- דצמבר 2008) פרופ'נסים חיים - מכון אונקולוגי-מ.ר. רמב"ם

  2. CSFs • Therapeutic benefits…. • Side effects…. • Guidelines….

  3. Therapeutic benefits of CSFs Reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia?

  4. Reduced risk of febrile neutropenia “Administration of CSFs result in a 50% risk reduction of developing febrile neutropenia”(NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology – v.2.2005 (Overview).

  5. 1.0 0.8 G-CSF 0.6 Proportion Free of Fever with Neutropenia 0.4 Placebo 0.2 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cycles of Chemotherapy Chemotherapy Induced Neutropenia Planned DI + G-CSF Primary prophylaxis Crawford J. et al. N Engl J Med 1991;325:164-170. Purpose: Testing the hypothesis and clinical implications of chemotherapy-related neutropenia reduction in patients with cancer. Patients and methods: 211 SCLC patients participated a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of G-CSF support to 6 cycles of Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Etoposide. P < 0.001

  6. 39.5% 22.4% GCSF Control Risk of febrile neutropenia with and without GCSF-results of a meta-analysis Kuderer NM et al. J Clin Oncol 25: 3158-67, 2007(a meta-analysis of 15 controlled trials (n=3182 pts) using GCSF before the onset of fever or neutropenia following systemic chemotherapy for solid tumors or lymphomas): Mean risk for FN RR=0.54---P<,0001

  7. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Shortens the length of neutropenia and febrile neutropenic episode, and reduces the period of hospitalization and IV antibiotics?

  8. 100 10 Placebo 1 Neutrophils X 109/L G-CSF 0.1 0.01 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 Day of Treatment (CDE – Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Etoposide) Trillet-Lenoir V. et al. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A(3):319-324.

  9. Neupogen reduces the duration of hospitalizationand i.v. antibiotic use in patients with AML p=0.0001 30 20 10 0 p=0.0001 Median duration (days) Hospitalisation i.v. antibiotics Neupogen Placebo Adapted from Heil G et al. Blood 1997

  10. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Reduces the risk of documented infection?

  11. mean risk of documented infection Risk of documented infection-results of a meta-analysis Lyman GH et al. Am J Med 112: 406-11, 2002(a meta-analysis of 8 controlled trials (n=1144 pts)…7 trials reported information on the documented infection… Odds ratio= 0.51 (p= 0.001)

  12. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Reduces the risk of documented infection-related mortality?

  13. 2.8% 1.5% Control GCSF Risk of documented infection-related mortality- results of a meta-analysis Kuderer NM et al. J Clin Oncol 25: 3158-67, 2007(a meta-analysis of 12 controlled trials (n=3122 pts) using GCSF before the onset of fever or neutropenia following systemic chemotherapy for solid tumors or lymphomas): (RR=0.55; P=0.018) *reduction in infection-related mortality was significant among studies of filgrastim but did not reach statistical significance with lenograstim or pegfilgrastim.

  14. Meta-analysis: effect of prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors on mortality and outcomes of infection(Sung L et al. Ann Intern Med 147:400-11, 2007) • BACKGROUND: Benefits of prophylactic hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in adults and children receiving cancer chemotherapy or undergoing stem-cell transplantation (SCT) are unclear. PURPOSE: To determine whether prophylactic CSFs decrease mortality, infections, and febrile neutropenia more than does placebo or no therapy in patients with cancer and in patients undergoing SCT. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception until April 2007 and of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until the second quarter of 2006. STUDY SELECTION: We selected 148 trials that were reported in any language that randomly assigned patients to CSFs or to either placebo or no therapy. Prophylactic CSFs were given concurrently with or after initiation of chemotherapy. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data onto standardized forms. DATA SYNTHESIS: Short-term all-cause mortality appeared to be similar between the prophylactic CSF and the control groups (7.6% vs. 8.0%; relative risk, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.84 to 1.08]; absolute risk reduction, 0.4% [CI, -0.5% to 1.4%]). Risks for infection-related death with CSFs and placebo or no therapy were 3.1% and 3.8%, respectively (relative risk, 0.82 [CI, 0.66 to 1.02]; absolute risk reduction, 0.8% [CI, 0.0% to 1.5%]). Use of CSFs reduced the following more than did placebo or no therapy: documented infections (median rate, 38.9% vs. 43.1%; rate ratio, 0.85 [CI, 0.79 to 0.92]), microbiologically documented infections (median rate, 23.5% vs. 28.6%; rate ratio, 0.86 [CI, 0.77 to 0.96]), and episodes of febrile neutropenia (median rate, 25.3% vs. 44.2%; rate ratio, 0.71 [CI, 0.63 to 0.80]). LIMITATIONS: Trial designs, including assessments of infections, and participants were heterogeneous. Estimates of mortality effects were imprecise. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic CSFs may have little or no effect on mortality but do decrease rates of infection in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy or those undergoing SCT.

  15. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Reduces the need for dose reductions and treatment delays (& reduced dose-intensity)?

  16. Mean RDI 95.1% 86.7% Controls GCSF Relative Dose Intensity (RDI) Kuderer NM et al. J Clin Oncol 25: 3158-67, 2007(a meta-analysis of 10 controlled trials using GCSF before the onset of fever or neutropenia following systemic chemotherapy for solid tumors or lymphomas): P = 0.001

  17. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Enables full-dose following a prior cycle with febrile neutropenia?

  18. Full-dose chemotherapy following a prior cycle with febrile neutropenia • Metastatic small cell lung cancer treated with a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide • Patients who developed neutropenic fever during the first cycle received the second cycle with full dose+ G-CSF • Only 23% of these patients developed neutropenic fever during the second cycle. (Crawford J et al. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 164-170)

  19. Full-dose chemotherapy with GCS-F support* following a prior cycle with febrile neutropenia- Dept Oncology, Rambam Medical Center experience • Since September 1995, a standard policy in patients treated with an intent for cure or for durable complete remission. * filgrastim (neupogen)300 or 480 mcg/day for ~10 days

  20. Eligibility Criteria • Neutropenic fever was not associated with life-threatening infection. • There were no other dose-limiting toxicities. • Age 75 or less; performance status (WHO) 0-2

  21. Diagnosis in 51 patients who developed neutropenic fever (without GCSF)—(age:22-75,median: 47)

  22. Chemotherapy protocols (n=51)

  23. Next cycle (n+1) (full dose with GCSF support in all pts) • Number of pts…………………………………………51 • Neutropenic fever:……………………..8/51(16%) • Days of IV antibiotics:…..4.5 (median),(3-7) • Evidence of bacterial infection:…………none

  24. Next cycle (n+2) (full dose with GCSF support in all pts) • Number of pts…………………………………………41 • Neutropenic fever:……………………..4/41 (10%) • There was no drug-related death associated with either cycle.

  25. A policy of full-dose chemotherapy with secondary G-CSF support in pts who develop febrile neutropenia following moderately myelotoxic chemotherapy is relatively safe and feasible. Haim N, Shulman K, Goldberg H, Tsalic M. Med Oncol 22: 229-32, 2005

  26. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Enables administration of dose-dense therapy?

  27. Dose-intensity & Dose-density 90 mg/m2 every 3 wks vs. 30 mg/m2/week: • Both regimens have the same dose intensity. • 30 mg/m2/week gives a greater dose density than the 3-weekly administration.

  28. Tolerability of dose-dense chemotherapy with GCSF-breast cancer Citron ML et al. J Clin Oncol 21: 1431-39, 2003 • AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 & cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) q 3 wks or q 2 weeks +filgrastim days 3-10 at 5 mcg/kg rounded to either 300 or 480 mcg. • Treatment was well tolerated. Severe neutropeniawas less frequent in patients who received the dose-dense regimens (6% vs. 33%).

  29. Dose-dense CHOP (CHOP-14) • Cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 IV, day 1 • Adriamycin 50 mg/m2 IV , day 1 • Vincristine 1.4 mg/ m2 IV , day 1 • Dexamethasone 20 mg IV, day 1 • Prednisone 100 mg PO, days 2-5 • Cycles are repeated every 2 weeks. • GCSF is given on days 4-13. • Pfreundschuh M et al. Blood 104: 626-33, 2004 (young pts) • Pfreundschuh M et al. Blood 104: 634-41, 2004 (elderly pts)

  30. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Enables administration of “high-dose” chemotherapy (without peripheral blood stem cell support)?

  31. CHOP & Mega CHOP in aggressive non Hodgkin`s lymphomas CHOP: • Cyclophosphamide750 mg/m2 IV, day 1 • Adriamycin 50 mg/m2 IV , day 1 • Vincristine 1.4 mg/ m2 IV , day 1 • Prednisone 100 mg PO, days 1-5 (cycles repeated every 3 weeks) “Mega” CHOP: • Cyclophosphamide1500mg/m2 IV (1hr), days • 1 and 2 • Mesna 200 mg/m2 X 4, IV, day 1; 200 mg/m2 X 8,IV day 2 • Adriamycin 50 mg/m2 IV , day 1 • Vincristine 1.4mg/m2 (max. 2mg) IV, day 1 • Prednisone 100 mg PO , days 1-5 (cycles repeated every 3 weeks)

  32. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Improves the outcome of febrile neutropenia when started at the time of established neutropenia?

  33. ASCO 2000 Guidelines for GCSF Therapy- Febrile Patients with neutropenia (2000) • “The results of 8 randomized trials provide strong and consistent support for the recommendation that G-CSFs should not be routinely used as adjunct therapy for the treatment of uncomplicated fever and neutropenia…”. • GCSF should be considered in pts with complicated neutropenia and fever”.

  34. CSFs for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis (Clark OAC et al. J Clin Oncol 23: 4198-4214, 2005)(13 trials with a total of 1,518 pts) • Significantly reduces the length of hospitalization(HR=0.63;P=0.006) • Significantly reduces the time to neutrophil recovery(HR=0.32;P<0.0001). • A marginally significant result was obtained for the use of CSF in reducing infection-related mortality(3.1% VS. 5.7%; HR=0.51; p=0.05).

  35. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Improves treatment outcome?

  36. ESMO recommendations for the application of haematopoietic growth factors (hGFs). Ann Oncol 12: 1219-20, 2001: No high level evidence for increase in survival

  37. CSFs in lymphoma-meta-analysis Bohlius J et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 3: CD003189, 2004 (12 eligible randomized controlled trials with 1823 pts): • -----reduced the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. • However, there is no evidence that CSFs provide a significant advantage in terms of CR, freedom from treatment failure or overall survival.

  38. Therapeutic benefit of CSFs Enables stem cell mobilization ?

  39. Side effects

  40. Adverse Events –“Bone pain” • In bone marrow bearing locations • Usually of mild/moderate severity ~(15%)* • Transient - controlled with oral analgesics *Med Oncol 22: 229-32, 2005: 20/51(=39%);severe in 8 (=16%)

  41. Adverse Events – Transient elevations in LDH, uric acid, and alkaline phosphatase • InLDH, and uric acid: attributed to the proliferative effects of G-CSF on neutrophil precursors in the bone marrow, with increased cell turnover • In alkaline phosphatase: potentially secondary effects on bone.

  42. GCSF and lung toxicity Pulmonary complications of GCSF are very rare and include cough, dyspnea, and interstitial or alveolar pulmonary edema. Few cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome have been reported.

  43. A possible interaction between bleomycin and GCSF Martin WG et al. J Clin Oncol 23: 7614-20, 2005 : GCSF was associated with increased lung toxicity in Hodgkin`s disease patients treated with bleomycin containing drug combinations). (GCSF may enhance bleomycin-induced lung toxicity by a mechanism that probably involved neutrophils). On the other hand: Saxman SB et al. Chest 111: 657-60, 1997: Fossa SD et al. J Clin Oncol 16: 716-24, 1998: There is no increase in pulmonary toxicity with co-administration of G-CSF and bleomycin compared to bleomycin alone in pts with advanced germ cell tumors.

  44. GCSF: effect on spleen • Spleen enlargement (Picardi M et al. Haematologica 88: 794, 2003), • Splenic rupture (Falzetti F et al. Lancet 353: 555, 1999; Dincer AP et al. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 26: 761, 2004).

  45. GCSF & leukemia/MDS NCCN Guidelines: Myeloid Growth Factors v.1. 2009: “Although there have been suggestions of potentially increased risk of acute leukemia with G-CSF administration from epidemiological studies, they are confounded by by differences in the chemotherapy dose delivered. The research on Adverse Drug Reports (RADAR) group concluded that long-term safety data is still lacking to confirm such a relationship (Tiggue CC et al. Bone Marrow Transplant 40: 185-192, 2007)

  46. Guidelines for the use of CSFs* * “…guidelines cannot always account for individual variations among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgement with respect to to particular patients or special clinical situations….”(ASCO guidelines-2006)

  47. ASCO(American Society for Clinical Oncology)Guidelines 2006 Update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. Smith TJ et al. for the American Society of Clinical Oncology Growth Factor Expert Panel.Published ahead of print on J Clin Oncol May 8, 2006

  48. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Myeloid Growth Factors Version 1. 2009 http://www.nccn.org

  49. EORTC (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) Guidelines EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumors.Aapro MS et al. Published ahead of print, Europ J Cancer , 2006

  50. Hematopoietic growth factors: ESMO recommendations for the applications. Greil R et al. Ann Oncol 19 (suppl 2): ii116-ii118, 2008

More Related